Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that on the ratification by the Government of Finland of the Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.

I will comply with your request.

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (New Zealand) Order 1966 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Asian Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1966 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EAST KILBRIDE BURGH BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

WELSH OFFICE PROVISIONAL ORDER (WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL.

Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Leconfield Aerodrome

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decision has been reached about the future of Leconfield aerodrome; and whether it will be made available to civil airlines as well as to the Royal Air Force.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The Royal Air Force will require Leconfield for as far ahead as can be foreseen. We are now prepared to discuss with any applicants the terms and conditions under which we could allow a scheduled civil air service to be operated from the airfield. For example, military needs must take priority, and we cannot undertake to provide for a civil operator any airfield or safety services we would not require ourselves.

Mr. Wall: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reply. Does it mean that a civil air firm could use this aerodrome within, say, the next 12 months provided that arrangements can be made with the Government?

Mr. Rees: It means that, and I suggest that everyone gets together and talks about it.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the City of Kingston-upon-Hull has always been keen to have this airfield as the site for a municipal airport? Despite any lobbying by commercial firms, will he constantly bear this in mind?

Mr. Rees: We should be quite prepared to discuss it with Hull Corporation as well.

Mr. George Jeger: Does my hon. Friend's reply relate to all R.A.F. airfields? Is it not time that a comprehensive review of all R.A.F. airfields was


held in order that some of them might be turned over to civilian use?

Mr. Rees: This is constantly being looked at. My reply refers to Leconfield, but if my hon. Friend has any particular airfield in mind, perhaps he will get in touch with us.

Anglo-Australian Base

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the planning and preparation of an Anglo-Australian base on the continent of Australia.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 27th April, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) on 22nd June.

Mr. Wall: As our position in Singapore depends on the local, now independent, Government, and as we have commitments to defend Australia and commitments to S.E.A.T.O., are these discussions being pressed forward rapidly?

Mr. Healey: Discussions are proceeding at the official level, and we are exploring what facilities it would be possible to provide, at what cost, how soon, and for what forces, should the need arise. But the need has not yet arisen.

Borneo (Withdrawal of Forces)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops it is proposed to withdraw from Borneo; and when they will be withdrawn.

Mr. Healey: About 10,000; as soon after the ratification of the Bangkok Agreement as Malaysian forces are able to assume full responsibility for the defence of Eastern Malaysia.

Mr. Goodhew: If that is so, why did the right hon. Gentleman tell the Press in Kuching only a week or so back that the number was to be 16,000? Does he think that it is wise to bandy about figures of any sort when all the evidence at the moment suggests that the confrontation is far from ended?

Mr. Healey: I did not tell the Press that the number was 16,000.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that any undue delay after ratification would make things very awkward for the Government of Indonesia at present?

Mr. Healey: We are well aware of the need to redeploy our forces as soon as the situation which will permit us to do so arises, and we have reached agreement with the Malaysian Government on a programme for an orderly withdrawal of this nature.

Mr. Powell: In what context, then, did the right hon. Gentleman use the figure 16,000?

Mr. Healey: I used the figures 10,000, 16,000 and 20,000 to illustrate some of the difficulties which would arise if and when the opportunity arose to withdraw the forces. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take the trouble to read what I said and not accept his hon. Friend's account of it.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with the Malaysian Government about withdrawal from Borneo.

Mr. Healey: I cannot go into details of what were confidential discussions, but of course I did discuss this important question with Malaysian Ministers during my recent visit, and I can say that there is no difference between us on the need to withdraw British troops from Eastern Malaysia, at best practicable speed, once we are satisfied that confrontation has come to an end.

Mr. Marten: Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the Governments in that area the question of regional cooperation so that ultimately there will be a balance of Asian forces? If so, what was their reaction?

Mr. Healey: We had some discussion on the matter, as did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who reported as much to the House recently. Nothing would please Her Majesty's Government more than for the countries of the area to reach agreement among themselves for their mutual protection.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House was told as recently as 28th February that we would have a continuing defence


commitment for Brunei? Will he reassure us that we are going to look after and stand by that defence agreement?

Mr. Healey: Yes. Of course, we recognise our commitment to Brunei.

Borneo (Secretary of State's Visit)

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next proposes to visit Borneo.

Mr. Healey: I have just returned.

Mr. Kershaw: I am at least pleased about that. Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat what he has said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), since we should hear two or three times from him that he does not propose to go back on the Treaty with Brunei as he has on some of our other undertakings?

Mr. Healey: That last remark is beneath contempt.

Army Board (Lunch)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to public funds of a luncheon at Quaglino's given by the Army Board and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army on 11th July; and why this luncheon was not given in some military mess or Government establishment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. David Ennals): £46 11s. 3d. This was an official Army Board lunch in honour of the Quartermaster-General of the Royal Netherlands Army. The cost of a lunch of this nature would not have been less in a Government establishment and suitable facilities were not available in a military mess in central London.

Mr. Wells: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there are messes in central London readily available for this? I am sure that the House, in the present mood of national economy, will not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that an adequate lunch could not have been provided for less than £46.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman is not correct in what he says. There are only four messes in the region of central

London, only one of which has a private room—and a private luncheon was essential on this occasion. But the mess with the private room at present runs only a buffet service.

Far East (Armed Forces)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many British Service men he proposes to bring back from the Far East, following the ending of confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia; what will be the approximate annual financial saving; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: The maximum number that will permit those who remain to discharge our continuing obligations in the area. The annual financial saving will depend upon the size and composition of our final force deployment in the Far East and upon the way in which the units withdrawn are fitted within the overall force structure which emerges from the Defence Review.

Mr. Allaun: To what extent, if any, is the saving above that already accounted for in the February Defence Review? Will my right hon. Friend undertake that the saving will be a massive reduction—as the Prime Minister called it on 23rd June—and that we will not send the troops elsewhere in the Far East but will bring them home?

Mr. Healey: I have made it clear many times that the first call on the forces that it will be possible to withdraw from Eastern Malaysia will be to relieve overstretch among our forces in other parts of the Far East theatre but that we plan to reduce our overall force strength in the Far East as soon as possible in line with my main Answer.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The Prime Minister told the House that the withdrawals would be "massive". Was that said to please the Left wing? What was President Johnson told?

Mr. Healey: My right hon. Friend said "massive". I would have said "substantial". Substance and mass are much the same thing.

Mr. Mayhew: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while our existing commitments are maintained, there is no


intention of reducing the manpower levels agreed for 1969–70 in the Defence Review?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. I have made it clear that a reduction to lower force levels in the Far East is strictly contingent upon the ending of confrontation and my hon. Friend will be as happy as I am that the ending of confrontation seems to be coming earlier than sometimes imagined.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If the right hon. Gentleman contemplates the removal of forces from the Far East and perhaps from Germany as well, can he say where he will put them?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. Elsewhere.

Arms Expenditure

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made towards reduction of arms expenditure.

Mr. Healey: Defence Estimates this year are below those of 1964–65 at constant prices and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this evidence of progress.

Mr. Allaun: Unfortunately not. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side feel that, despite the financial crisis, the cuts are trifling? As the £2,000 million a year programme is to stand, are not the Government really only advancing a £100 million a year cut by one year?

Mr. Healey: I think that my hon. Friend is mixing up savings on foreign exchange and savings in resources. I do not think that anyone could rightly regard savings of £400 million in resources as trifling. Nor is a saving of up to £100 million out of a total expenditure in foreign exchange of £300 million trifling. It is a cut of one-third.

Mr. Blaker: When will the Government announce details of the £100 million cut which the Prime Minister mentioned two weeks ago? Both the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have told us that firm decisions have been taken. When will we be told about them?

Mr. Healey: When the necessary consultations have been carried out with our allies and others concerned.

P1127 Aircraft

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Defence for how many P1127 aircraft he has now placed a firm order.

Mr. Healey: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation is at present negotiating a contract with the firm covering the development of and a substantial production order for this aircraft.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, in accordance with the promise given prior to the cancellation of the TSR2, it is his intention to put this aircraft into substantial service with the R.A.F.?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. We hope that it will be in service in 1969.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Is not this a fantastic delay in making the order firm? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the R.A.F. must be extremely distressed by the delay and the total disregard he is showing?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. There has been no delay of any sort in the process of producing this aircraft. Long-lead items have been ordered and all necessary financial authorities are continuing. This is very important and I hope that hon. Members will agree that we should draw up the tightest possible contracts to meet the taxpayers' needs.

Aden (Base)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what undertakings he gave to the Government of the Southern Arabian Federation concerning the British base in Aden, prior to the publication of the Defence Review.

Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to what I said on this matter in the defence debate on 8th March.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is firm belief in Southern Arabia that he gave definite pledges himself that there would be no going back on our agreement to help them with their defence? Is he saying


that he has given no undertaking to that Government?

Mr. Healey: I am aware of the feelings and beliefs of the Federal Ministers, some of whom I had the pleasure and honour of talking to about this question in London the other day. I am satisfied that they do not regard me as having given any undertaking not consonant with the policies of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Kershaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he never gave any undertaking? If so, how does he account for the universal belief among Ministers and leaders in that part of the world that he did so, that the Prime Minister did so and that this country is thoroughly committed?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong in saying that this is a uniform belief among Ministers in Southern Arabia. I have discussed it with them and I am satisfied that what the hon. Gentleman says is quite incorrect.

Cadet Forces

Mr. Robert Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what public funds are being provided for the military training of schoolchildren and other young persons under 18 years of age; and if he will release these funds for other educational purposes.

The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I assume that my hon. Friend's Question relates to the cadet forces: the overall cost of these to public funds is about £3·7 million a year. Many members are over the age of 18 years and it is not practicable to distinguish the cost attributable to those under that age. The answer to the second part of the Question is: No, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Is not this an unwarrantable waste of public money in present circumstances? May I remind the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that a previous Labour Administration discontinued these grants? Is not this the time to revert to that precedent?

Mr. Mallalieu: It is not an unwarrantable waste of public money. So long as we are to have Armed Forces, we have to have recruits, and this is one way of

getting them. Secondly, these forces are doing an extremely good job as public youth services. If my hon. Friend wants confirmation of that, I shall be glad to arrange visits for him.

Mrs. Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many such cadet forces inculcate into these young people the virtues of discipline, smartness and alertness, which are of great benefit to them?

Mr. Mallalieu: They help to inculcate a great many virtues.

Travel Warrants (London—Belfast)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to public funds of a travel warrant for a Service man on leave between London and Belfast and the cost of the same journey by air, tourist class; and if he will make arrangements to credit the lesser amount to the Service man who chooses not to use his free travel warrant but to fly on leave at his own expense.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The cost of a travel warrant at present varies between £4 0s. 2d. and £5 12s. 9d. return; the air tourist fare ranges from £6 14s. to £17 8s. return, excluding the cost of travel to and from the airport. The answer to the second part of the Question is No, Sir.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Bearing in mind that the granting of this credit would be no additional cost to public funds and the resentment which is felt by individual Service men about the present rules, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter and try to do some justice to people who want to get on leave in a much shorter time than the 13 hours which it now takes to cross by sea?

Mr. Mallalieu: As the hon. and learned Gentleman very well knows, successive Ministers have had an extremely good look at this matter. We have very good travel arrangements at present which benefit all the Services and I do not want to upset them by proposing changes.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Territorial Efficiency Decoration

Mr. Murton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent of the delay between an officer being gazetted for the award of the Territorial Decoration and its presentation to him.

Mr. Ennals: I regret the delay of some months in the issue of the insignia of the Territorial Efficiency Decoration. This is due to a shortage of craftsmen at the Royal Mint. I hope that the backlog will be cleared in about six months' time.

Mr. Murton: Is not the delay now 12 months? Is it not shameful that it has not been possible to plan ahead and to see that an officer receives his decoration when he qualifies for it and it has been gazetted by the Queen to him?

Mr. Ennals: It is not correct to say that the delay is 12 months. They have been issued for September, 1965. There are 297 officers who are awaiting receipt of this decoration. Naturally, I am unhappy that this has happened, but I am assured by the Royal Mint that the problems are now settled and that in a few months' time issue will be brought up to date.

Armed Services (Release)

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will conduct an inquiry into the present system of obtaining release from the Armed Services; and if he will end the practice of encouraging young men aged 16 years to contract nine-year engagements.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I do not think that such an inquiry is necessary; but I do think it undesirable that recruits should be allowed to commit themselves irrevocably to long engagements before they know what they are in for. Army and R.A.F. recruits already have the right to buy their discharge during the first three months of service, and I have now informed the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill that by regulation under the Bill when it becomes law we propose to bring Navy practice broadly into line with the other two Services.

Miss Lestor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree with me

that there is one case, about which I have made representations to him, concerning a young man who now has permission to enter a university and who will lose his place because of the obstacles being placed in the way of his obtaining his release? Will my hon. Friend look into this?

Mr. Mallalieu: I know that case very well and I have considered it, as has my noble Friend, with the greatest sympathy. Had the man concerned not deserted for a period, he would have been out by now.

Mr. Fisher: As the young man, Mr. Mayhew, from whose case this Question arises, is a constituent of mine, may I ask the Minister whether he would agree with me that a reluctant soldier is seldom a good soldier and that this young man might be better employed on a university course, for which he has qualified, rather than missing it altogether as he will if he is not very soon released from the Forces?

Mr. Mallalieu: I have great sympathy with this case which I have considered very carefully, but people cannot jump the queue. He will not miss his place at university.

F111 Aircraft (Offset Agreement)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what sales have now been successfully negotiated to offset the purchase of F111 aircraft from the United States of America.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what sales of arms have now been concluded with the United States of America in order to offset the cost of purchasing F111A aircraft from the United States of America.

Mr. Healey: No sales have yet been concluded, but I am pleased to inform the House that in addition to the items I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) on 18th July, we have now heard that the British bid for an ocean-going salvage tug was the lowest when the bids were opened on 21st July. British bids for two items of aircraft electronic equipment were also the lowest. These bids are now being evaluated by the United States Department of Defense and we hope to hear that we are getting the orders during


this month. Their value would be about 24 million dollars. Hon. Members will also be aware of the prospect that Rolls-Royce will reach agreement with Allisons on the supply of Spey engines for the A7. The value of this is expected to be about 100 million dollars.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: What action has the right hon. Gentleman taken to make inquiries beyond the defence departments of the United States Government to see whether procurement can be made through other agencies, such as hospitals, police forces and so on, of equipment which the United States Government and its agents buy?

Mr. Healey: That is not a matter for me, but, as I have made clear to the House, under the offset agreement with the United States we are identifying items of equipment, not only arms and military equipment directly, but also general supplies for military purposes, and some supplies of the nature which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will no doubt arise under that head.

Mr. Goodhart: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possible order for Spey engines. If it is wrong to sell bombs to the United States, why is it not wrong to sell engines which fly the aircraft which drop the bombs?

Mr. Healey: I think that many hon. Members would feel that, rather than attempt to make mischief between Britain and the United States, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite might do their duty better by expressing some pleasure at the fact that Her Majesty's Government have enabled British firms to win contracts to a value of about 125 million dollars worth of foreign exchange.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would my right hon. Friend consider selling back Polaris as part of the offset agreement as it was retained in the first place because we had already ordered it, although we do not really want it?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. We regard out Polaris submarines as an important contribution to an international Western deterrent.

Mr. Powell: Is it not a fact that negotiations for the sale of these Spey engines have been in progress since long before the offset arrangement was entered

into and that there is no reason whatever for connecting this sale, if it takes place, with the offset arrangement? Will he not further confirm that the sale of vital parts for the American A7 would be in breach of the policy announced by the Government in relation to the sale of arms for use in Vietnam?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. Spey engines for the A7 were one of the items jointly identified by the two Governments, and without assistance from the Government the deal which we now hope to go through would have had little chance of succeeding. On the second point, the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the aircraft into which these Spey engines would go will not be flying for another three or four years.

Far East (Aircraft Carriers)

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what tasks are at present carried out by aircraft carriers in the British Far East Fleet.

Mr. Healey: Aircraft carriers provide for the mobile deployment of aircraft with the necessary maintenance and support. In the Far East this gives the Commander in Chief great flexibility in the deployment of air power and also enables him to meet contingency plans and unforeseen needs at short notice. Carriers are also available to participate in exercises with Commonwealth and other navies and to play their part in goodwill visits.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Would the right hon. Gentleman say with what aircraft and from what bases these important tasks will be carried out if aircraft carriers are no longer to be available in future?

Mr. Healey: I made this clear in the course of the debates on the Defence Review. In the maritime rôle there will be Phantom aircraft, the HS801 and helicopters and for land strike the F111A and V-bombers.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that £30 million is to be spent on refitting the Ark Royal? Could we not postpone this until the financial crisis has cleared up a bit?

Mr. Healey: That is another question.

Arms Sales

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he applies the same and what principles to the sale of arms to countries taking an active part in resisting Communist aggression in South Vietnam.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the offset agreement with the United States of America which he negotiated in connection with the purchase of F111As contains a clause to the effect that arms purchased by the United States of America from the United Kingdom would not be used in Vietnam.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is applying the same rules for the sale of arms to all countries with troops fighting against Communist aggression in South Vietnam.

Mr. Healey: I would refer to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend, the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on 12th July.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his own statement that he did not propose to supply arms for use, directly or indirectly, in Vietnam, with the Prime Minister's statement that there was no restriction on the supply of arms to Australia? If arms are properly supplied to the Australians, why are they refused to the allies fighting alongside them? Is not that making mischief with our American allies?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. I know that it disappoints many hon. Members opposite that this issue did not arise at all between my right hon Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. We are supplying arms to the United States, as I have just pointed out, providing that their supply is consonant with what we regard as our responsibilities under the Geneva Agreement.

Mr. Ridley: If the Government's responsibilities under the Geneva Agreement prevented the Government from selling arms which could be used in Vietnam, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why members of his Department negotiated a sale of bombs and rockets with the American Government when it was clear

that these bombs were to be used in Vietnam?

Mr. Healey: Members of my Department have never negotiated the sale of such weapons with the United States.

Mr. Goodhart: If it is wrong to sell weapons for use in South Vietnam, why did the right hon. Gentleman sign the S.E.A.T.O. communiqué, which welcomed the increase in military aid to South Vietnam?

Mr. Healey: Because we regard our responsibilities as a co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference as imposing certain restrictions on the extent to which we can supply arms for use in the fighting in Vietnam. This is fully understood by our American allies, and I feel that if hon. Members had the interests of the alliance at heart, they would cease trying to make mischief on this issue.

Mr. Powell: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), is the right hon. Gentleman denying that his Department was engaged in discussing with the United States authorities, on or about the 22nd June, the sale of munitions for, or suitable for, use in Vietnam? Was the Department unaware of his policy or was he unaware of what was going on? What is the explanation?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman will know that exploratory inquiries on a large number of issues are often received by Departments, but the final decision as to whether action should be taken on those inquiries must always rest with the Minister in the Department concerned.

Mr. Dickens: Can my right hon. Friend tell us why it is, then, consistent with our obligations under the Geneva Agreement to sell or supply arms to Australia which is a belligerent in South Vietnam?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman should know that the Australian battalion in Vietnam is not equipped with British arms. It is equipped with American arms.

Mr. Dickens: How does my right hon. Friend know that?

Mr. Healey: Because we have military attachés in Saigon and we have a good deal of information about what is going,


on. We take the trouble to obtain this information.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question did not relate to the receipt of inquiries, but to detailed discussions between his Department and the United States authorities? Presumably these would be a waste of time if there were no possibility of a sale? Does he deny that such discussions were taking place?

Mr. Healey: As I say, when an inquiry is received, discussions take place about how to deal with it.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the other side was in office, and when the Vietnam affair was in existence, it never offered to provide the United States with arms at any time?

Mr. Healey: I am not quite sure what my right hon. Friend means by that, but I will say that I am now very fully aware of the chagrin felt by hon. and right hon. Members opposite that Her Majesty's Government's policy on Vietnam has had no effect on the fulfilment of the offset agreement.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

F111 Aircraft

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the first F111 aircraft purchased for the Royal Air Force will become operational; where they will be based; and in what rôle they will be used.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The first F111 aircraft in the Royal Air Force will become operational early in 1969 and will be based in this country. As my right hon. Friend has often made clear, the rôle of the F111 will be to replace the Canberra as a tactical strike/reconnaissance aircraft.

Mr. Davidson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the offset agreement with the United States has proved to be one-sided, and as the future rôle of this aircraft is entirely hypothetical and its cost enormous, in view of the country's present economic state, we

should seek agreement with the United States allowing us to be released from our obligation to purchase it?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the offset agreement, and he is wrong about the aircraft's future rôle which is most important.

Polaris Submarines

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the progress of the Polaris submarine programme.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The first Polaris submarine, H.M.S. "Resolution", will be launched by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother at Barrow on 15th September. The second submarine, H.M.S. "Renown", will be launched at Birkenhead on 25th February, 1967.

Mr. Hamling: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether any of the cuts recently announced by my right hon. Friend will apply to the Polaris programme?

Mr. Mallalieu: Some of them.

Mr. Powell: May I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on continuing with the provision of the British independent nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Mallalieu: I will certainly accept congratulations on the remarkable way in which this project has been carried out, but it is not an independent deterrent.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose the Polaris submarines are to be used when they are completed; and in what parts of the world they are to operate.

Mr. Healey: With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1st March, 1966, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). On the second part, it is the intention that the Polaris submarines shall operate in the N.A.T.O. area.

Mr. Hughes: But in view of the fact that we are in a financial crisis—if the right hon. Gentleman has not heard of


it—does not he think that there is a strong case for postponing the completion of Polaris submarines as he does not know how they will be used when they are completed?

Mr. Healey: I know perfectly well how they will be used. I am very well aware, too, that the Polaris building programme is very tight, and any attempt to postpone it would lead to an enormous increase in its final cost.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Will these submarines be based conveniently close to the submarine training facilities at Londonderry? Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he was denying the existence of the expert Committee which I mentioned and its report?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy gave a very full answer to that question.

Hon. Members: No.

Royal Navy

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of recent changes in naval building programmes, he will make a further statement on the rôle to be played by the Royal Navy in fulfilling defence commitments.

Mr. Healey: I do not think that we can any longer consider the rôles of the individual Services in isolation from one another; they are all mutually interdependent. In due course, the Navy will give up one of its present tasks, which is to provide air cover for the Army ashore. It will, however, retain in some measure all its other tasks, and we mean to provide it with the new ships and weapons which it will need, in cooperation with the R.A.F., to carry them out.

Mr. Hamling: Would my right hon. Friend use his influence with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and seek to persuade him to provide the House with an opportunity to debate the rôle of the Navy at an early date?

Mr. Healey: I very much hope that my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, during the next defence debate and is able to raise this matter.

Joint Anti-Submarine Training School

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations to retain the Joint Antisubmarine Training School at Londonderry he has received; and what action he will take.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: In addition to indirect representations by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, I have been pressed on this subject in the House by hon. Members opposite and had a personal interview with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). After renewed investigations and discussion, I have decided to move the school to Plymouth, as originally planned.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Does the Minister deny that experts on the Committee at the beginning of the year were strongly against the abandonment of Londonderry and recommended its expansion? Will he publish the report so that those interested in defence, and the taxpayers, can judge the issue for themselves?

Mr. Mallalieu: I have had a great deal of expert advice on this, some for the changes and some against. After a good deal of thought I have decided to maintain the previous decision.

Mr. Powell: Is it not a fact that information and advice received since the decision was announced last August was cast the gravest doubt on its wisdom? Will the Government not have the courage to reconsider this whole matter in view of the fact that the information and the considerations are now substantially different from what they appeared to be last August?

Mr. Mallalieu: They really are not different. We thought that possibly decisions taken in the Defence Review might have a bearing on the previous decision, and we looked at it extremely carefully. We have decided that the previous decision is right and should stand.

Captain Orr: This is surely a very squalid story. If the Minister's own Committee has now said that he is wrong, the least that he could do is what my hon. Friend asks and publish the report


so that we can judge whether the strategic decision is right. Is it not important when the future employment of so many people is at stake?

Mr. Mallalieu: There is nothing squalid about it at all. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that experts frequently give contrary advice and it is the job of the Minister to make up his mind.

Maritime Forces (Air Defence)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what aircraft will be used in the 1970s for air defence of maritime forces; and what arrangements have been made to train the Royal Air Force for this rôle.

Mr. Healey: Phantom aircraft will be used for air defence in maritime operations in the 1970's, both before and after the task is transferred from the Royal Navy to the Royal Air Force. R.A.F. aircrews are already trained in air defence duties. In particular, this rôle will be covered in the training given to R.A.F. crews at the Phantom Operational Conversion Unit and in subsequent exercises and squadron training.

Mr. Irvine: What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to make sure that the staff requirements are dealt with as well, as they would be entirely different from those which prevail at the moment?

Mr. Healey: We are taking all the necessary steps to cover that problem.

Mr. Dance: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that Gibraltar must play a great part in the training of Coastal Command aircrew, particularly under Mediterranean conditions?

Mr. Healey: I am well aware of the rôle of Gibraltar in our training and operational activities. I do not believe that this is a relevant consideration to the question that we are now discussing.

Royal Air Force (Long-distance Maritime Warfare)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in view of its new responsibilities for longdistance maritime warfare, what proposals he has made to change the name of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Healey: None, Sir.

Mr. Irvine: As the strike reconnaissance and maritime rôle will be very different from anything undertaken by Coastal Command, should not something be done to bring home not only to the R.A.F. but to the people of this country the great increase in its responsibilities?

Mr. Healey: The Services are always dropping old responsibilities and taking up new ones. The people of this country fully appreciate the ability of our three Services to rise to this type of challenge.

Zambia (R.A.F. Airlift)

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated monthly cost of the Royal Air Force airlift to and from Zambia; and what is the total cost so far, up to the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: About £400,000 and £2·6 million up to the middle of last month.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Does not this huge unproductive expenditure point to the bankruptcy of the Government's policy of sanctions against Rhodesia? Will the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to grant legal independence to Rhodesia now?

Mr. Rees: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, "No". With regard to the second part, very much "No".

Mr. Whitaker: Will my hon. Friend remind hon. Members opposite that principle can have no price put upon it? Will he ask them to make the best economy by their telling their friends in Salisbury to stop their illegal adventure?

Hilsea Barracks and Rugby Camp, Portsmouth

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will arrange for property and land at Hilsea Barracks, Portsmouth, to be released to the Portsmouth City Council for educational or housing purposes.

Mr. Ennals: A renewed offer of the major part of Hilsea Barracks and of Rugby Camp has now been made to the Portsmouth City Council.

United Nations Force (Training)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether any units of the Army, Royal Navy or Royal Air Force are receiving special training for service, if required, as part of an international United Nations Force.

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. Normal training ensures that British units are well able to play their part in peace-keeping operations of the type in which a United Nations force is most likely to become involved.

Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend agree that peace-keeping operations by the United Nations are infinitely preferable to national military operations and that there is a case for some kind of special training for our forces to enable them to play their part?

Mr. Healey: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on the first part of his supplementary question. One of Her Majesty's Government's most urgent preoccupations is to strengthen the peacekeeping powers of the United Nations. On the second part of his supplementary question, I think that if he saw what the British troops did in the United Nations operations in Cyprus and elsewhere he would agree that they were admirably trained for this type of responsibility.

Mr. Blaker: Since the Government are planning to leave South Arabia without any other help for its defence, is it their intention that it should rely on the help of the United Nations If so, how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with what he said recently, that the United Nations is not at present capable of taking over the peace-keeping operations in Asia which we have been performing ourselves?

Mr. Healey: There are so many hypothetical questions involved in that supplementary question that I am afraid I do not know how to answer it.

Service Women (Pay)

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for Defence why women in the British Armed Forces are paid only 85 to 88 per cent. of the basic pay

rates for men of equivalent rank and trade.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Because, in general, Service women are not expected to share the same hazards and obligations as Service men. However, women medical and dental officers do receive the same rates as men, because their full duties are broadly comparable.

Dr. Summerskill: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that in the N.A.T.O. countries of America, Canada, Holland and France women in the Armed Forces are paid the same as men of equivalent rank and trade doing the same work and with the same hazards? Can he justify the exploitation of British women?

Mr. Mallalieu: The point is the rate for the same job. No women are being exploited in the Services.

Defence Expenditure

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what part of the firm programmes decided on by the Government which will reduce our overseas Government expenditure, military and civil, by at least £100 million relates to defence expenditure; and in what financial year that reduction will first arise.

Mr. Healey: As we must consult with our allies and Commonwealth partners before making the reductions, I cannot give any details at this stage.

Mr. Powell: As the Government have repeatedly stated that these plans and intentions are firm and have been worked out in detail, why, even though other Governments have to be consulted, cannot the House be told what proportion of the saving relates to civil and what proportion to defence expenditure?

Mr. Healey: I think that it would be quite inconsistent with normal diplomatic behaviour to give any details on these matters without assuring ourselves that the other Governments concerned are prepared to have the details given.

Sharjah

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what he estimates will be the capital cost of the new facilities to be provided at Sharjah; what sum will be paid to the Ruler in consideration


of the British presence; and what will be the current annual cost of maintaining at Sharjah the forces contemplated under the Defence Review.

Mr. Healey: Provisional estimates of the cost of the additional facilities required are at present being examined and it would be premature to give figures at this stage. On the sum to be paid to the Ruler, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) on 27th July.

Mr. Powell: Since this expenditure, although the right hon. Gentleman has not worked it out, is bound to be substantial and incurred for the protection of Sharjah and other Trucial States and the preservation of peace in the Gulf, why is it right and fair that this country should have to pay £100,000 a year to the Ruler for the privilege of doing so?

Mr. Healey: Because it is always normal for Her Majesty's Government to pay for facilities provided in foreign States. I think that it is right in this case that we should make the sum of £100,000 a year available to the Ruler of Sharjah, which is a very poor State indeed and desperately in need of money for development, in return for facilities by no means related solely to the defence of Sharjah.

Mr. Sandys: How long does the right hon. Gentleman think that we shall be able to maintain a British presence in the Gulf after we have given up our main base in Aden?

Mr. Healey: Long enough, Sir.

Territorial Army (Recruiting Figures)

Mr. Awdry: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the recruiting figures for the Territorial Army for the six months' periods ended 30th June, 1965, and 30th June, 1966.

Mr. Ennals: 13,857 and 6,568 respectively.

Mr. Awdry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety that the suggested terms of service for the A.V.R.III will make it extremely difficult to get enough recruits?

Mr. Ennals: I do not accept that at all. Our impression is that there is excellent recruitment, or, rather, signing of declarations of intent. I believe that we shall have no difficulty in completing our complement.

Mr. Powell: Are not the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave dramatic evidence of that refusal of the Government to use voluntary effort which was offering for service in the Territorial Army, which is implicit in the Government's ill-conceived measures for cutting it down to less than half its size?

Mr. Ennals: Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is totally disproved by the figures for re-engagement of those already in the Territorial Army indicating their intent to stay. These figures are extremely encouraging.

Recruitment and Re-engagement

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the estimated figures for recruitment and re-engagement, shown separately, in terms of man-years for 1966 if present recruiting trends continue; and what percentage fall these show on similar figures for each of the years 1964 and 1965.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Yes, Sir. In general the estimates show an expected rise, but this must not be taken to mean that the present recruiting and re-engagement rates are wholly satisfactory.

Sir T. Beamish: Is the Minister aware that the 1966 Regular Army recruiting figures, in terms of man-years, look like showing a short-fall of at least 25 per cent. on 1964? Is that not a very disturbing side effect of 18 months of Socialist mismanagement and muddle?

Mr. Mallaieu: The forecast for the Army is that it will be 1 per cent. up.

Mr. Hamling: Can my hon. Friend say what were the recruiting figures for the Royal Marines in the last 12 months?

Mr. Mallalieu: They are down. The Royal Marines are the only category that is down.

Following are the figures:



Estimate for 1st April 1966 to 31st March 1967 Man-years
Comparison with previous years 1964–65 1965–66 Percentage change


Recruitment





Royal Navy and Royal Marines
70,500
+ 0·26
+ 1·4


Army
181,000
-19
+ 1*


Royal Air Force
57,000
+55†
+25


Re-engagement


Royal Navy and Royal Marines
21,000
+ 7·75
− 5·68


Army
42,000
+ 8
+15


Royal Air Force
37,000
+71
+29


* There is a slight swing from 6 year to 9 year engagements.


 †R.A.F. recruiting was severely curtailed during 1964.

British Army of the Rhine

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the British contribution to the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20th July.

Sir T. Beamish: Since, on 25th July, when speaking in Paris, the Minister described allied forces in Europe as barely adequate to carry out the tasks which they have been entrusted with, how does he square that with the threat to make substantial cuts in B.A.O.R. in certain circumstances?

Mr. Healey: I did not describe the forces as barely adequate to carry out the tasks which they have been entrusted with. What I said, in a private meeting of the N.A.T.O. Council, is that the forces required by the military commanders in N.A.T.O. over recent years bear no relation to what any of the member Governments are prepared to provide, and therefore it is essential to revise the contingency plans for the forces so that they are compatible with the forces available. I hope very much that the German Government will not make it necessary for Her Majesty's Government to reduce our forces in B.A.O.R., but I had to make it clear to all our allies that it is quite intolerable that Britain alone among the European members of the alliance should not only be making a very substantial military contribution to the common defence but also crippling her balance of

payments to swell the reserves of another ally.

Mr. Frank Allaun: After bringing these men home, as I hope the Minister will, why is it necessary to build barracks for them in Britain, since every factory and town in the country is crying out for labour? Why not demobilise them and enable them to go into productive industry, thus killing two birds with one stone?

Mr. Healey: We also believe that it is important to ensure the defence of this country and that our foreign policy is supported by relevant military forces. Those are considerations which must also be borne in mind.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend's anxiety is unnecessary, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that, if necessary, these men could be accommodated here under canvas?

Mr. Healey: I would make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman, as he well knows, that there is no question of that being necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. John Wells: asked the Lord President of the Council how many rooms in the Palace of Westminster and adjacent buildings under the control of the House of Commons are occupied by Labour party officials; what is the total area of floor space so used; and if he will arrange to offer it to Members of Parliament.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Three, occupying 780 sq. ft. The allocation of accommodation to the Parliamentary Labour Party, which is of long standing, was recognised by the Stokes Committee in 1953 and I know of no reason why it should now be reviewed.

Mr. Wells: Is the Lord President aware that the British taxpayer will be extremely angry to hear that these arrogant party hacks employed by the party opposite are occupying this large amount of space which might well be offered to hon. Members who have to put up with very mediocre working conditions, and, furthermore, what may well have been


acceptable to the Stokes Committee nearly 20 years ago is no longer acceptable to the country today?

Mr. Bowden: I am aware that since 1906 the Parliamentary Labour Party has had some accommodation in the Palace of Westminster. I am also aware that there are at present three officers of the Conservative Party who, I am sure, are not arrogant party hacks, who occupy accommodation in the building.

Mr. Baker: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to have instituted a regular, approximately half-hourly, messenger service between the Letter Board and outlying Members' secretaries' offices, such as 7 Old Palace Yard, from 10.30 a.m. until 7 p.m.

Mr. Bowden: It would not be possible to institute such a service without an increase of staff.

Mr. Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the staff cannot be increased?

Mr. Bowden: This position is met as well as possible. I understand that the doorkeepers on the Letter Board already telephone outlying accommodation whenever there are urgent letters, telephone messages, etc., and it seems quite unnecessary to duplicate this work.

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will ask the Services Committee to review all instances of sexual discrimination in those parts of the Palace of Westminster under the control of the House of Commons.

Mr. Bowden: I will gladly ask the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) to look at any instances if the hon. Gentleman can show that Members of either sex are incommoded by the present arrangements.

Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was one unfortunate example only last week when the Deputy Prime Minister of Italy was segregated from his secretary—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair wants to hear this.

Mr. Whitaker: —separated from his interpreter simply on the ground that she was a woman, so that he was unable

to understand the economic debate that was taking place?

Mr. Bowden: I am not quite sure whether that is an advantage or a disadvantage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The position is that the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery is restricted to men, and ladies are not admitted to it.

Hon. Members: Why?

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTER AND TRINITY LAW TERMS

Sir D. Renton: asked the Attorney-General whether, he will now announce the dates of the Easter and Trinity Law Terms for 1967.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): No alteration in the dates is proposed. The Easter term will therefore run from 4th April to 12th May, 1967, and the Trinity Term from 23rd May to 31st July, 1967.

Sir D. Renton: Does that mean that the matter is now finalised, and therefore the Answer which right hon. and learned Gentleman gave to me a fortnight ago is confirmed?

The Attorney-General: The matter is finalised. The answer is "Yes".

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD ACCIDENT VICTIMS (COMPENSATION CLAIMS)

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the practice in which firms describing themselves as industrial accident consultants write to the injured or next-of-kin concerned in road accidents offering their services in connection with making claims for compensation, on the understanding that nothing will be payable unless the claim succeeds, but that the charges will not exceed one-tenth of any amounts recovered; and if he will introduce legislation to prevent persons profiting from the misfortunes of others in this matter.

The Attorney-General: I am aware of concern that is felt about the practice to which the hon. Member refers, particularly as legal advice and representation is now readily available to those without adequate means. However, I do not think that legislation would be appropriate.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Attorney-General aware that, within two days of two constituents being killed in a car smash, a duplicated letter from a firm known as the Road and General Assessors, Limited, of 59, Swinton Street, London, reached the next-of-kin offering its services to sue all and sundry at no charge if nothing was recovered and up to 10 per cent. of whatever was recovered in the event of success? Is not this an outrageous case of touting for private profit by battening on the grief of the next-of-kin, and, if there is not a case of champerty or barratry here, is there not at least a case for some form of Government intervention?

The Attorney-General: I share the indignation expressed by the hon. Gentleman. The Law Commission is considering as part of its first programme the law of maintenance, and has been asked to consider whether ambulance-chasing is relevant to its consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL PROFESSION (JOINT EDUCATION)

Mr. Whitaker: asked Mr. Attorney-General if, in view of the long delay of the Inns of Court in reaching a decision on the joint education of the two legal professions, he will introduce legislation to deal with the matter.

The Attorney-General: I do not think that this is a matter which it would be appropriate to deal with by legislation. A good deal of work has been done on the problems involved and I hope that they will be resolved when the proposed Senate, a new policy-making body representing the four Inns of Court and the Bar Council, is set up.

Mr. Whitaker: Could the Attorney-General tell us how long the present deadlock has continued, what is its cause, and how much longer he will wait before he intervenes?

The Attorney-General: The discussions have been going on for some time. I am doubtful whether there is any Ministerial responsibility in this field at all. At any rate, the matter is now being dealt with, and the proposed Senate will be a more effective body for dealing with these problems than anything which presently exists.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE

Mr. Driberg: asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions for industrial espionage there have been in the past 18 months, and with what results.

Mr. Neave: asked the Attorney-General how many criminal prosecutions have been instituted for disclosure or use of industrial secrets by means of espionage during the last five years; and whether he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: Industrial espionage is not a criminal offence, and consequently there have been no such prosecutions. However various provisions of the criminal law could apply and, in appropriate cases, have done so.

Mr. Driberg: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider the case arising in a firm in my constituency, of which he knows, where a former employee who stole immensely valuable results of research and development could be prosecuted only for stealing bits of paper worth £3? Is he satisfied with the law as it stands at present?

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has invited hon. Members to send him any evidence of the inadequacy of the present legal position. There seems to be a matter which calls for consideration, namely, that the law does not take into account the stealing of intangibles such as industrial ideas and formulae, but only apparently the paper on which they may be written; but a court could take into account the significance of the theft of the paper in deciding the sentence in the case.

Mr. Neave: Would not the Attorney-General agree that what is really wanted is some industrial secrets legislation to prevent the photographing of documents, which is not a criminal offence at the moment? Will he, in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade, consider further representations on this problem during the Recess?

The Attorney-General: Most certainly, and if hon. Members have any further information on this subject we shall be very glad to receive it, because this is a very important matter for British industry.

Sir J. Hobson: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the information indicates that this is fairly extensive, and does need dealing with urgently?

The Attorney-General: I have no information to suggest that it is extensive, but it has been taking place.

POST OFFICE (REORGANISATION)

3.31 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
During recent years the Post Office has developed into a complex of vast business enterprises. It now faces considerable problems of expansion, modernisation and reorganisation if it is to meet the growing demands of the economy.
In considering whether or not the Civil Service context in which the Post Office functions is appropriate in present circumstances, the Government have recently carried out a fundamental survey of its management, structure and functions. After the most careful consideration it has been decided that the time has come to make a change, and that, instead of being a Department of State, with a Minister at its head, the Post Office should become a public corporation, the members of which would be appointed by and responsible to a Minister.
Within this corporation the management of the various services would have an opportunity to develop on more independent lines, but always with a primary responsibility for the maintenance of comprehensive national services available to all citizens in all parts of the country.
A final decision on the exact form of the reorganisation and of the internal management structure must await publication of the report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which is now examining the Post Office, and the fullest consultations with the representatives of the staff. These consultations will now be put in hand, and a White Paper will be presented to the House in due course setting out the Government's final proposals.
The Government believe that this decision to modernise the status and

management of the Post Office will make a considerable contribution to its efficiency, and the efficiency of Britain, in the years ahead.

Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House welcome this statement, which seems to us a development of the policies which we started, and, in particular, the ideas of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples)?
May I ask four friendly questions? First, on the question of accountability, does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have any control over charges in the future?
Secondly, will he still be in a position to answer Questions which hon. Members may wish to put in the House about postal services?
Thirdly, what will be the position and the status of employees who are now classed as civil servants?
Fourthly, on the question of management, is the right hon. Gentleman considering bringing in management from outside, as Lord Robens was brought into the Coal Board, or will the promotion be made from inside the Post Office?

Mr. Short: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his question. I agree that this is a logical third step from the two steps which the Conservative Administrative took in 1956 and 1961, I think.
On the question of charges, I imagine that the position of the Minister responsible for the Post Office will be the same as it is with prices charged by the nationalised industries. Certainly, the present regulation system will not obtain. This is one of the difficulties from which the Post Office suffers.
The matter of Questions in the House must await the White Paper and the Bill, but, clearly, Parliament must face the fact that it cannot keep the Post Office tied to its apron strings forever, and expect it, at the same time, to be a forward-looking, go-ahead, bustling, and developing industry. This cannot be done if it suffers from this inhibition, which no other industry in the country does.
Employees will cease to be civil servants. The whole question of status and change-over is a matter which I shall


be discussing at great length with staff associations throughout the next three years.
With regard to management, I hope that there will be cross-fertilisation with outside industry.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but can he give me some further details in connection with Post Office Savings Bank facilities and the new giro service which is shortly to be started? I accept that my right hon. Friend starts from a position of being favourably inclined towards negotiations, but will he bear in mind the long history of rights and privileges which Post Office employees have as civil servants?

Mr. Short: With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I agree that this will not be an easy matter. We are not doing this quickly. De are taking altogether three years over it before vesting day, and we will have the fullest discussions with the staff associations.
Whether the Savings Bank is managed by the new corporation or not, banking policy will remain in the hands of the Treasury.
On the question of the giro, it rather depends on how one looks at this—whether one regards it as part of the Post Office remittance services, or as part of the banking side. Clearly, what happens to the giro will depend on what decision the Government take about the banking services.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to have a consumer consultative council for the Post Office, similar to that applying to other nationalised industries? Secondly, can he say what this decision will mean from the point of view of the responsibility of the Minister of Technology for telecommunications?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman will know that my predecessor set up a Post Office Users' Council last year, and I am certain that there will be consultative machinery in the new set-up. The hon. Gentleman must put his question about telecommunications to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Fr end's statement mean that at long last we are to get a divorce in the unholy

alliance between the telecommunications side of this industry and the postal services, to the mutual benefit of both parties?

Mr. Short: As I said in my statement, we believe that at the top there should be one corporation co-ordinating the two. There is a great deal to be said for co-ordination of the two services, but beneath the level of the corporation we intend to separate the two services as completely as possible.

Mr. Marten: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of considering whether he can get the question of communication satellites out of the Post Office arena and into a Ministry which is more space-minded than the Post Office?

Mr. Short: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should say that. If he has not visited Goonhilly, I would be pleased to arrange a visit for him. I am sure that the Post Office is making the fullest use of the present Early Bird satellite, and we intend to go on doing so as part of the consortium of nations.

Mr. Moyle: Will my right hon. Friend explain in more detail what he meant when he talked about allowing management to expand on more independent lines?

Mr. Short: We believe that this is one of the benefits which will flow from this reorganisation. As I said in an earlier reply, we think that beneath the corporation level the two major services, post and telecommunications, should be separated. This will allow the management to expand.
The other great inhibition is the insistence by the House on scrutinising the minutiæ of day-to-day Post Office business. This has resulted in unhealthy centralisation. It has prevented devolvement down to lower levels, and it inhibits decision-taking. If the Post Office is given its independence we believe that it will enable the management to spread its wings and develop in a way which it has never been able to do before.

Dr. Winstanley: Despite his reassurances, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that his statement says very little about the extent to which the new body will be accountable to the House and the community? Does he agree that


anxiety has been expressed in the House about the degree of accountability of some of these services under the existing arrangements? Would he assure us that it will be no less accountable under the new arrangements?

Mr. Short: The extent of its accountability will be changed, of course. I understand the feelings of the House: they are the feelings of any parent who sees a child going off into the world. We are loath to part with this child.
But the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that only last year the Government changed the terms of reference of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries and that Committee is now carrying out one of the most thorough and, I think, most worth-while investigations of the Post Office ever carried out.
In addition, there will, of course, be the same degree of accountability as now obtains over the other nationalised industries. For example, their accounts will be presented to Parliament and they will be, at any rate in theory, liable to be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that, at a time when many hon. Members on both sides of the House are pressing for the right to

ask Questions on day-to-day administration of the nationalised industries, there is now contemplated the setting up of a public corporation which would prevent hon. Members from asking him Questions of that kind, a privilege which has operated ever since the formation of the Post Office?

Mr. Short: As I have said, the House cannot have it both ways. Either we agree to accept the degree of Parliamentary accountability which the other nationalised industries have, or we allow the Post Office to go on tied firmly to Parliamentary apron strings, with all the inhibitions which that entails.

Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is rather a particular case, in that, at the moment, there is, for one reason or another, a good deal of concern about the state of the postal services? Constituents will feel frustrated if their Members of Parliament are not able to investigate and air their grievances.

Mr. Short: Constituents can have their grievances aired as they can now about the Coal Board and the Electricity Board. There will be no difference.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must proceed.

BROADCASTING ENABLING

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney) rose——

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Mr. Jenkins: If the House will permit me, I will take less than the traditional 10 minutes for this task.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the Postmaster-General to establish a Television and Radio Authority for the purpose of running the fourth Television Channel, setting up a National Popular Radio Programme and acting as parent station to local radio stations and to abolish pirate radio whether operating within or without territorial waters.
This proposal is firstly to enable the Postmaster-General to set up a National Popular Radio Programme, which will replace the pirates. One of the important functions which the new Television and Radio Authority envisaged in the Measure will have—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House again that it insisted that Ten Minute Rule Bills be taken at this time of day. It must be consistent and listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jenkins: I was saying that one of the important functions which the Authority I am suggesting would have is the job of setting up a national popular music programme to replace the pirate radio programmes. I congratulate the Government in general and my right hon. Friend in particular on deciding to get rid of the pirates.
Radio 390, whose listeners have written at its suggestion to many hon. Members, interferes, as my right hon. Friend knows, with Swedish Radio broadcasts and also with shipping broadcasts on the Medway. Like most of the other pirates, it has an extremely dubious background. It was originally established by Tom Pepper, alias Featherbee, who died mysteriously, and some other people. It was twice "hi-jacked" by force, before being sold to its present owners. I understand that the police in Folkestone have a record of one such incident of violence in connection with this station.
I should like to quote from what The Scotsman said when Radio Scotland, a station with a similarly dubious back-

ground, was established. The paper said:
Meanwhile, the pirates are revelling in a tobacco advertising bonanza put their way by Labour's cancer-conscious ban on TV cigarette commercials.
This is only one example of the fact that, once an organisation is outside the law, it is outside the law not just in one respect but in all.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend for deciding that this cannot go on. It is high time that this bunch of law breakers ceased to be supported by businessmen who claim to be respectable. An object of the Bill is to replace the pirates. There is no doubt that the Government proposals to dispose of the pirates will be effective, but there needs to be established by next spring, when the last of the pirates will, I hope, be walking the plank, a legitimate popular music programme or programmes.
The Bill, which I hope the Government will adopt and adapt, has the establishment of such a programme as a main purpose. I find the B.B.Cs sound programmes very acceptable, but there are those who do not and they should not be compelled to accept "Auntie" B.B.C. in a "mini-pop" skirt as a substitute for "Mr. Cosy-Tones" and his audible syrup. I do not share the taste. It is too sweet for me, but that is no reason why I should impose my choice on others who like to be chummed up to in a manner which the B.B.C., rightly, does not regard as the appropriate style for any of the Corporation's programmes.
The pirates, whatever their antecedents, have gained an audience. This is a measure of the B.B.C.'s failure. I ran a radio station once in Rangoon in 1945. It was a very good Forces' station, much better than any other, and I know from that experience that every radio station or programme acquires a personality of its own, which informs, in a subtle way, its entire output.
The Bill would propose the establishment of a new public Authority, publicly owned, publicly capitalised, but acquiring its main revenue from advertising. It would not be the I.T.V. of sound radio, still less would it be commercial radio. It would take advertising, but so does the Radio Times, so does the New Statesman and so does the Daily Worker—I beg its pardon, the Morning Star, when it can


get it. What counts is not the source of the revenue, but who controls the enterprise. The sources of revenue of the steel industry will be the same after nationalisation as it was before, but the ownership will be changed, and that is what matters.
The first task of the new Authority will be to replace the pirates in a manner acceptable to their audiences, but also to the writers' and performers' unions and organisations, but it will have other duties as well—to form a main feeding source for future local radio stations, to launch the fourth T.V. network and to give support to the University of the Air. The B.B.C. needs competition in sound, but it needs the right sort of competition. I wish to bring in the Bill so that hon. Members can see and judge for themselves whether the recipe which I propose is not the right one for us.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Peter Archer, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. William Hamilton, Miss Joan Lester, Mr. Ernest Perry and Mrs. Renée Short.

BROADCASTING ENABLING

Bill to enable the Postmaster-General to establish a Television and Radio Authority for the purpose of running the fourth Television Channel, setting up a National Popular Radio Programme and acting as parent station to local radio stations and to abolish pirate radio whether operating within or without territorial waters, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd December, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [2ND AUGUST]

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1966–67

1. That a sum, not exceeding £154,985,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.: —

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1966–67



£


Class I, Vote 4, Department of Economic Affairs
1,311,000


Class III. Vote 2, Scottish Home and Health Department (including a Supplementary sum of £5,000)
1,981,000


Class IV, Vote 1, Board of Trade
6,342,000


Class IV, Vote 3, Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)
22,342,000


Class IV, Vote 6, Ministry of Labour (including a Supplementary sum of £364,000)
27,568,000


Class V, Vote 2, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Revised Sum)
8,153,000


Class VI, Vote 1, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (including a Supplemetary sum of £41,632,000)
76,609,000


Class VI, Vote 2, Scottish Development Department (including a Supplementary sum of £5,084,000)
10,679,000


Total
£154,985,000

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1966–67

Class I

2. That a sum, not exceeding £137,485,250, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. House of Lords
253,000


2. House of Commons (including a Supplementary sum of £2,000)
1,908,000


3. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
3,247,000


5. Privy Council Office
40,000


6. Post Office Ministers
7,250







£


7. Customs and Excise
18,982,000


8. Inland Revenue
51,554,000


9. Corporation Tax: Transitional Relief
60,000,000


10. Exchequer and Audit Department
486,000


11. Civil Service Commission
630,000


12. Royal Commissions, etc.
378,000


Total
£137,485,250

CLASS II

3. That a sum, not exceeding £139,633,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.: —



£


1. Diplomatic Service (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)
21,557,000


2. Foreign Services (including a Supplementary sum of £856,000)
11,582,000


3. British Council
2,972,000


4. Commonwealth Services (including a Supplementary sum of £439,000)
13,834,000


5. Colonial Office (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)
4,494,000


6. Colonial Grants and Loans (Revised sum)
493,000


7. Ministry of Overseas Development (including a Supplementary sum of £5,000)
1,730,000


8. Overseas Aid (Multilateral)
2,113,000


9. Overseas Aid (Bilateral) (including a Supplementary sum of £26,399,000)
59,682,000


10. Overseas Aid (General Services)
15,011,000


11. Overseas Aid (Colonial Development and Welfare)
5,250,000


12. Commonwealth War Graves Commission
915,000



139,633,000

CLASS III

4. That a sum, not exceeding £126,353,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.: —

£


1. Home Office (including a Supplementary sum of £43,000)
13,236,000


3. Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
8,211,000

CLASS IV

5. That a sum, not exceeding £767,269,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


2. Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports, &amp;c., and Shipping and Other Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £ £10,000)
3,726,000


4. Export Credits
900


5. Export Credits (Special Guarantees, &amp;c.)
900


7. Ministry of Aviation (including a Supplementary sum of £3,570,000)
188,090,000


8. Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)
900


9. Ministry of Aviation (Purchase of United States Aircraft)
1,000


10. Ministry of Aviation (Special Materials)
36,600,000


11. Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services
11,235,000


12. Ministry of Transport
3,675,000


13. Roads, &amp;c., England
134,900,000


14. Roads, &amp;c., Scotland
21,524,000


15. Roads, &amp;c., Wales
11,198,000


16. Transport Services (including a Supplementary sum of £19,000,000)
22,868,000


17. Transport Boards (including a Supplementary sum of £4,200,000)
66,167,000


18. Ministry of Power (including a Supplementary sum of £30,656,000)
39,004,000

£


19. Ministry of Technology
15,304,000


20. Atomic Energy (including a Supplementary sum of £250,000)
8,973,000


21. Atomic Energy (Trading Fund Services)
900


22. British Petroleum Company Ltd.
1,000


23. Ministry of Labour (Selective Employment Payments)
190,000,000


24. Selective Employment Tax: Repayments to the Postmaster-General and to Cable and Wireless Ltd.
14,000,000



767,269,600

CLASS V

6. That a sum, not exceeding £199,344,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.: —

£


1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Revised sum)
17,414,000


3. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies) (Revised sum)
56,550,000


4. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies) (Revised sum)
11,983,000


5. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
85,955,000


6. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
8,475,000


7. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services) (Revised sum)
14,237,000


8. Food (Strategic Reserves)
900


9. Fishery Grants and Services
2,972,000


10. Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
1,758,000



199,344,900

CLASS VI

7. That a sum, not exceeding £2,073,957,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.: —



£


3. Welsh Office (including a Supplementary sum of £2,729,000)
4,657,000


4. Housing, England (Revised sum)
52,037,000






£


5. Housing, Scotland (Revised sum)
11,934,000


6. Housing, Wales (Revised sum)
3,734,000


7. General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
536,644,000


8. General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
51,175,000


9. Rate Deficiency Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
130,000,000


10. Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
17,980,000


11. Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Revised sum)
943,000


12. Forestry Commission
8,505,000


13. Ministry of Health
4,195,000


14. National Health Service, etc. (Hospital Services, etc.) England and Wales
408,532,000


15. National Health Service (Executive Councils' Services), England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)
159,491,000


16. Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales
34,452,000


17. National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.) England and Wales
900


18. National Health Service, etc., Scotland
80,369,000


19. National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), Scotland
900


20. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
5,871,000


21. National Insurance
204,800,000


22. Family Allowances
99,472,000


23. National Assistance Board
181,291,000


24. War Pensions, etc.
77,874,000



2,073,957,800

CLASS VII

8. That a sum, not exceeding £293,928,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz.: —

£


1. Department of Education £ and Science
94,443,000


2. Scottish Education Department
20,135,000


3. Teachers' Superannuation (England and Wales)
900


4. Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland) (Revised sum)
1,000


5. Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain
138,173,000


6. Social Science Research Council (Revised sum)
459,000


7. Science Research Council
21,134,000


8. Natural Environment Research Council
3,676,000

£


9. Medical Research Council
7,924,000


10. Agricultural Research Council
6,877,000


11. British Museum (Natural History)
621,000


12. Science: Grants and Services
485,000



293,928,900

CLASS VIII

9. That a sum, not exceeding £6,190,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.: —



£


1. British Museum
1,192,000


2. Science Museum
325,000


3. Victoria and Albert Museum (including a Supplementary sum of £30,000)
538,000


4. Imperial War Museum
104,000


5. London Museum
56,000


6. National Gallery
134,000


7. National Maritime Museum
114,000


8. National Portrait Gallery
44,000


9. Tate Gallery
109,000


10. Wallace Collection
47,000


11. Royal Scottish Museum, etc.
123,000


12. National Galleries of Scotland
60,000


13. National Library of Scotland
102,000


14. National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland
27,000


15. National Library of Wales and National Museum of Wales
310,000


16. Arts Council and other Grants for the Arts
2,905,000



6,190,000

CLASS IX

10. That a sum, not exceeding £245,906,800 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz: —

£


1. Ministry of Public Building and Works
23,333,000


2. Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom (Revised sum)
42,145,000


3. Public Buildings Overseas
5,864,000


4. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Navy Department)
21,810,000


5. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Army Department)
40,525,000

CLASS X

11. That a sum, not exceeding £5,750,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.: —

£


1. Charity Commission
265,000


2. Crown Estate Office
136,000


3. Friendly Societies Registry
102,000


4. Royal Mint
900


5. National Debt Office
900


6. Public Works Loan Commission
900


7. Public Trustee
900


8. Land Registry
900


9. Office of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements
120,000


10. Ordnance Survey
2,723,000


11. Public Record Office
162,000


12. Scottish Record Office
56,000


13. Registrar General's Office
806,000


14. Registrar General's Office, Scotland
143,000


15. Department of the Registers of Scotland
900


16. National Savings Committee
1,232,000



5,750,400

CLASS XI

12. That a sum, not exceeding £70,342,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class XI of the Civil Estimates, viz: —



£


1. Broadcasting
55,896,000


2. Carlisle State Management District
900


3. State Management Districts, Scotland
900


4. Pensions, etc. (Overseas Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £17,000)
6,481,000


5. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
650,000


6. Irish Land Purchase Services
435,000


7. Development Fund
550,000


8. Secret Service
6,000,000


9. Miscellaneous Expenses
297,000


10. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
32,000



70,342,800

DEFENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATE, 1966–67

13. That a sum, not exceeding £19,641,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for the salaries and expenses of the Central Defence Staffs, the Defence Secretariat and the Central Defence Scientific Staff and of certain Joint Service Establishments; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and sundry other services including certain grants in aid.

DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1966–67

14. That a sum, not exceeding £357,568,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.: —

£


1. Pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
59,425,000


2. Royal Naval Reserves
471,000


3. Navy Department Head quarters
8,435,000


4. Research and Development and other Scientific Services
18,428,000


5. Medical Services, Education and Civilians on Fleet Services
10,624,000


6. Naval Stores, Armament, Victualling and other Material Supply Services
133,749,000


7. H.M. Ships, Aircraft and Weapons, New Construction and Repairs (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)
105,505,000

DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1966–67

15. That a sum, not exceeding £329,080,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.: —



£


1. Pay, etc., of the Army
113,760,000


2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces
11,880,000


3. Army Department Head quarters
4,100,000


4. Civilians at Outstations
73,380,000


5. Movements
14,320,000


6. Supplies
11,780,000


7. Stores and Equipment
66,400,000


8. Miscellaneous Effective Services
3,400,000


9. Non-effective Services
23,820,000


10. Defence Lands and Buildings
6,240,000



329,080,000

DEFENCE

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES

16. That a sum, not exceeding £750,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the expense of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967.

DEFENCE (ARMY)

PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES

17. That a sum, not exceeding £1,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the expenditure incurred by the Army Department on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service and on miscellaneous supply, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967.

DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1966–67

18. That a sum not exceeding £322,120,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.: —



£


1. Pay, etc., of the Air Force
92,650,000


2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services
310,000


3. Air Force Department Head quarters
2,910,000


4. Civilians at Outstations and the Meteorological Office
28,260,000

£


5. Movements
12,450,000


6. Supplies
19,600,000


7. Aircraft and Stores
152,900,000


8. Miscellaneous Effective Services
370,000


9. Non-effective Services
12,670,000



322,120,000

NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1964–65

19. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £3,207,750 15s. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March, 1965, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts not offset by a saving in expenditure from the same Vote as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 1st February, 1966 (H.C. 72 (1965–66)) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Report (H.C. 98 (1966–67)).

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1964–65

20. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £11,878,504 19s. 4d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March, 1965, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts not offset by a saving in expenditure from the same Vote as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 28th January, 1966 (H.C. 78 (1965–66)) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Report (H.C. 98 (1966–67)).

AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1964–65

21. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £39,107 4s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March, 1965, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to one Vote for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 1st February, 1966 (H.C. 71 (1965–66)) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Report (H.C. 98 (1966–67)).

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Order [29th July], to put forthwith with respect to each Resolution the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution: —

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [2nd August]

Resolution reported,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967,

the sum of £5,251,306,450 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. MacDermot.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1967, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time; and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Order [29th July], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — PLEASURE BOAT "DARLWIN"

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I wish to raise a matter of the utmost gravity. I hope that hon. Members will listen to me for a few moments, although I have no desire to delay the House in the matter which is to be debated later and which I recognise is also of great importance.
I wish to refer to the mysterious loss of the pleasure ship "Darlwin", which, as the House knows, has been missing for some days off the coast of Cornwall, adjacent to my constituency. Perhaps I should mention at this point that I gave notice to the President of the Board of Trade at 2.30 p.m. today that I would be raising this matter.
As hon. Members are aware, this vessel left Fowey harbour at approximately 4.30 p.m. on Sunday afternoon, and on board were 31 persons, including seven children. The boat was returning to Falmouth, from whence it had set sail on a pleasure cruise. The weather on leaving Fowey was bad and there is ample evidence to show that it worsened as time went by. It worsened to the extent that a Force 8 gale sprung up between 5 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. that same afternoon.
According to Press reports—and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy, for I have gone to some trouble to check them—no search was attempted until 2.30 a.m. on the following Monday morning, that is 9½ hours after the ship had set sail from


Fowey in what is now known to have been rough seas and bad weather. Furthermore, the Search and Rescue Department at Plymouth was not alerted until 6 o'clock on that morning.
Unfortunately, much worse follows. On Monday, one Shackleton Rescue Command aircraft searched the area for an unspecified period. As far as I have been able to discover, that was the only attempt at an air search that took place on that day. Furthermore, the aircraft in question was recalled for unspecified duties. A second Shackleton was standing by, but that aircraft developed engine trouble and was not able to take off. Therefore, no air search continued yesterday or, indeed, has continued today.
It is quite untrue to suggest that the weather continues to be unfavourable. On telephoning the Board of Trade at 1.30 p.m. today I received a message confirming that although the air search had not been officially called off the Shackleton had gone on other duties on Monday; that the replacement aircraft had developed engine trouble, and that those concerned were at that stage seeking another aircraft. A quarter of an hour later I received information that they hoped that another aircraft would take off at approximately 2.30 p.m. G.M.T.—3.30 British Summer Time. I have also checked with meteorological experts in the area. It appears that at present we have a ceiling of 5,000 ft., which would enable aircraft to make a proper search.
I suggest that this is a matter of very considerable urgency. I suggest that there has been a totally inadequate rescue attempt made by the Departments concerned and responsible. I suggest that it is vital that the search be extended to take in a much larger area of the sea than that which is being searched at the moment. It has been suggested to me that it is quite possible that in the time that had elapsed this ship could have floated or sailed away as far as the Bay of Biscay. There is no evidence of wreckage. No boats have been recovered. There is no reason to suppose that this boat has sunk. It is a boat of strong construction, and I am assured, again by expert opinion, that it is very unlikely that she would founder even in heavy seas, and even though very badly overloaded.
I shall not delay the House by going into the question of the searching inquiry which I am sure the President of the Board of Trade will institute, or has instituted. I am certain, too, that everyone who has been responsible for allowing the ship to sail will be answerable for this tragic incident. But what I am deeply concerned about—and I believe that every hon. and right hon. Member in the House will be concerned about it—is the degree of effort being made by the Defence Ministry, by the Board of Trade and by every responsible person to see that the maximum possible effort is being made, and to ensure that the lives of these people are being cared for, in the sense that the search is being continued by every possible means at the disposal of the Departments concerned.
In view of the unwarranted delay, in view of the history of the calling-off of the one Shackleton aircraft, in view of the fact that no search was made yesterday and that no search is being continued by air today, quite clearly the entire resources of Air Command should now be placed at the disposal of the rescue squads in order to do everything possible to try to track down this boat.
The lives of 31 people are at stake. It is quite possible—although, I admit, doubtful—that those people are alive. I believe that the whole House will demand a searching inquiry into this matter. It is not enough to have a smooth Ministerial answer. We want an assurance that everything humanly possible will now be undertaken, for at this moment the relatives are so concerned that they are actually hiring private aircraft to carry out a job that should be done by the Royal Air Force.

4.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I should like first, to say that all the facts of this matter will come under scrutiny through the proper channels, as was announced yesterday, but I say at once that I regret, given the serious nature of the accident which has taken place this week and which has touched the hearts of many people in this country, that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) should seek to refer to it in the manner in which he has just done.
All I can hope is that the hon. Member can justify the times and facts that he has given to the House, which are contradictory to those I have obtained—very recently, I grant, and in haste, because of the nature of the way in which the inquiry came to me.
I should like now to give the facts as I have had them at this very short notice. The coastguards alerted the Royal Air Force through the usual channels at 0600 hours on Monday, and from that time onwards four sorties were carried out by helicopters from Chivenor. At 8 o'clock, a Shackleton took off from St. Mawgan. I make it clear that the crews of the Shackletons at St. Mawgan are properly trained for square searches in the Western Approaches. This is their job. It is something they do every day. They are properly trained in doing it.
I hope that there is no suggestion now that the job could be done better by a larger number of Shackletons, because this is the work that the crews are trained to do with one aircraft. I have been advised that one aircraft from these squadrons was sufficient to do the job. This was on Monday from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. I am also advised that during that day the "Ark Royal" was in the area and did a track search, and I am also advised that the "Fearless" was in the area, and did likewise.
On Tuesday morning, a Shackleton took off at 8 o'clock, but ceased searching at mid-day. I am also very firmly advised that because of the Force 8 gale, because of very, very bad visibility, it was impossible to carry on the search. At about the same time, the other aircraft, the helicopters, also gave the same advice that it was impossible to carry on the search. I would also point out that the nature of the sea at such a time makes it extremely difficult, whatever the visibility is, to see what is going on on the water.
I have pointed out that at about midday the search was withdrawn, but not because of any lack of urgency. On the contrary, this is not the nature of the Royal Air Force at St. Mawgan, or of the helicopter aircraft at Chivenor. There was no lack of urgency, and I regret the implication that has been made——

Mr. Bessell: Mr. Bessell rose——

Mr. Rees: I will give way in a moment.
I am also advised that today a Shackleton has been searching since mid-day, that visibility and weather conditions were also bad this morning, and that the search is still taking place.
Drift is something that men at the Shackleton R.A.F. station know how to measure. They take wind and drift into measure. A square search has been carried out, and I have seen the track on the map. Quite obviously, no politician can say, as an airman or sailor can, what is right in this respect, but I am advised that the ground covered by the aircraft must cover the area where this boat could be if it were still on the water.
I regret what the hon. Gentleman has said about lack of urgency. That is not the case. We shall go on searching, this is our job, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has told me that it is the work of the coastguards and of the lifeboats as well. Everything possible has been done, and it is grossly unfair to the relatives of these people to suggest that there is any dereliction of duty at this time.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood that the general feeling of the House was that the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill would be taken formally and that we might get on to the very important debate ahead of us. This matter has now been ventilated. I think that we might proceed with the Second Reading.

Sir Robert Cary: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the sentiments expressed in his opening remarks by the Government spokesman on this matter, surely there was nothing reprehensible or improper m the hon. Member on the Liberal benches raising this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, if the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) had been out of order he would not have been called. He was in order.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro) rose——

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member insist on speaking?

Mr. Wilson: I do not want to delay the House for more than a few moments, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to associate


myself with any criticism of the R.A.F., but I heard from Mr. Rainbird, the proprietor of the hotel from which most of these people came. Yesterday, I spoke to him on the telephone. He told me that he knew this boat well and that it had lifeboats and other moveable material on the deck. He raised the question whether it could have been sunk without some trace being found. He thought that it might have drifted towards the Bay of Biscay.
I inquired from the Board of Trade what search had been made and I was told that the R.A.F. had searched a square area obtained by projecting a line 33 miles due south of Start Point and another line 17 miles due south from the Lizard, and joining the ends, a very considerable area and beyond which the vessel would not have drifted. I hope that the search will be continued in case there is any possibility that it has gone in the Biscay direction as Mr. Rainbird thinks.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PRICES AND INCOMES BILL (COMMITTEE STAGE)

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: I beg to move,
That Standing Committee B be discharged from further consideration of the Prices and Incomes Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Although this is a procedural Motion, it is one of vital importance. It is a Motion to bring further consideration of the Prices and Incomes Bill back to the Floor of the House. After the Second Reading of the Bill, we on this side of the House moved that the Committee stage should be taken on the Floor of the House. We did so because of the importance we attach to the issues involved in the Bill, and also because we realised something of what the Government might do in a deteriorating economic situation of which we had constantly warned the country. We divided on this, and I regret that on that occasion we were not supported by hon. Members on the Liberal Bench.
I understand the position to be that Standing Committee B has completed consideration of the first three parts of the Bill, together with the Schedules, and did so at lunch-time after being kept sitting by the Government for 20 hours yesterday and today. I think this must be the longest Sitting probably for 20 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We may perhaps look at the history of this Bill for a moment. It was first promised by the Government ten months ago, in September, 1965, as part of the pledge to those who provided the billion dollar standby in September last. The White Paper was produced in November, 1965. The Bill was first published on 24th February, 1966. No action was taken on it, not even a Second Reading. The Prime Minister preferred to rush to the country before he was asked to account for the situation which is now plain for everybody to see.
The second Bill was not published until 4th July, 1966, more than three months after the Government returned to power. The Second Reading was fixed for 14th July, and ten days later, after a delay of nine months, the Government then demanded that both Houses


should dispose of this Bill before Parliament rose for the Recess—and that a fortnight later than it usually does so. In order to achieve this, the Government have had to keep the Committee sitting for 20 hours during the last 24 hours. That record of the history of this Bill and the treatment which the House has had in connection with it shows the dilatoriness of the Ministers concerned, their vacillation, lack of grip and final panic which has caused them to do it with the speed With which they are now trying to rush it through.
This is characteristic of this Government which started off in the splendid way with the Prime Minister's opening words at the beginning of the Session that the highlight of the Government's programme was going to be Parliamentary reform. The situation with this Bill in regard to another place is even more absurd. The Lords have been presented with a White Paper for debate containing an alleged Bill with all the Government Amendments which have so far been presented in Committee as if the Bill had already been passed by this House. This is a display of arrogance by the Government which makes a farce of proceedings in another place and treats this House with contempt. Any Government which assume that this House is going to pass every Amendment which they put on the Order Paper are treating this House with contempt.
We have always made it plain that, although we disagree with the element of compulsion in this Bill, we have no desire to delay it. That has been shown in all the discussions upstairs in Committee. I say now that we do not wish to discuss again the first three parts of the Bill and the Schedules which have been debated upstairs. We are fully prepared to give any undertakings on this. We have put down this wider Motion today. Although it refers only to "further consideration of the … Bill", I understand that it is being treated as a wider Motion. We want to bring the new Part IV on to the Floor of the House for discussion, but we want also to be able today to discuss this procedure in the context of the whole Bill; hence the wording of the Motion. I understand from a study of the last occasion when a similar Motion was put for-

ward —in that case a Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman)—that I am in order in putting forward all the reasons why we believe that Part IV should be discussed on the Floor of the House, but that I would not be in order to discuss the actual merits of Part IV or of the Bill itself. I shall endeavour to keep fully in order on that basis.
This debate is not, therefore, a Second Reading on the principles or the contents of Part IV and the new Clauses of the Bill which have been tabled by the Government upstairs. That Second Reading would have to come later on the Floor of the House if this Motion were carried. The debate today, as the House realises, is being taken on an Opposition Supply Day. Of course, time ought to have been provided by the Leader of the House, because this in the main concerns the interests of hon. Members in all parts of the House, as the Leader of the House knows full well. I regret to say that he is no longer responsive to the needs of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
This is the second time in the last few weeks—the first was over Vietnam, and now there is this one over this Bill—that the Opposition has had to come forward with the offer of time so that the needs of hon. Members can be met. The Leader of the House expressed pleasure that this debate was to take place today, but of course he refused to do anything about it. I do not think the House will forget for a long time that Motion which was suddenly slipped on to the Order Paper late last Thursday night to be taken first thing on Friday morning when normally not many hon. Members are present. It was to keep Standing Committee B sitting this coming weekend, not only for two hours after one o'clock on Friday, but throughout Saturday and Sunday and any day, even those on which the House of Commons is not sitting. What is more, by removing any power of dilatory Motion it would prevent any hon. Member of that Committee raising the question as to why they were going on sitting or trying to bring the sitting to an end. So we see guillotines, constant all-day and all-night sittings, and shabby, last-minute manoeuvres. This is what the Government are reduced to in an attempt to


cope with events which are beyond their control.
We believe that Part IV of the Bill ought to be discussed on the Floor of the House, for the one overwhelmingly powerful reason that it gives powers of compulsion of such a kind to the First Secretary over all prices and wages, setting aside all agreements, arbitration decisions, wages council and agricultural wages council awards, and, indeed, reversing prices and wages, that it amounts to the introduction of a fresh principle into the existing Bill. What is more, these powers are backed by fines of £100 or £500, which can then, if not paid, be followed by imprisonment. We believe that this gives powers to one Minister of such strength and of such a kind that it introduces an entirely new principle into the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading.
Moreover, these powers will affect every citizen and are of such importance that they ought to be discussed on the Floor of the House, with every Member given an opportunity to express his or her views upon them.
I understand that the Chairman of Standing Committee B has given his Ruling that the new Clauses are in order, though I understand that it will be necessary to alter the Long Title of the Bill later to accommodate this. We accept the Chairman's Ruling completely, though I read that he has pointed out that Part IV is more important than all the rest of the Bill put together. This only supports what I have already said.
Part IV completely changes the scope and the structure of the Bill as it received a Second Reading. The original purpose of the Bill was very clearly laid down in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I recognise that from the point of view of the law this does not carry, but it is a very clear and fair description of the Bill. The object of Part I is
to reconstitute on a statutory basis the National Board for Prices and Incomes 
which we on this side of the House accepted. The object of Part II is
to enable notification to be required of proposed increases in prices and charges, of increases in company distributions, of claims and of awards and settlements relating to terms and conditions of employment; and to enable temporary standstills to be imposed in particu-

lar cases of proposed increases in prices and charges and of awards and settlements pending their examination by the Board.
The Bill gives statutory powers to the Board and also gives powers for a period of delay while the Minister is considering whether matters should go to the Board and then while the Board considers the matter. There are no greater powers than that. That is the fundamental structure of the Bill, and it all rests on the Board.
Part IV does something completely different. It abolishes all this. There is no reference to the Board in Part IV. The Board no longer has any part to play. All the powers are given to the First Secretary for purely arbitrary decisions by him. There is no need for inquiry. The criteria laid down for the Board in Schedule 2 do not apply to Part IV. So the whole of the original structure of the Bill—the creation of the statutory Board and provision for delay pending its operation—has been swept away and in its place in Part IV are put completely arbitrary powers to be given to the First Secretary, without any criteria or any control whatever over this conduct and the way he makes these decisions.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago that the Chairman of Standing Committee B has ruled that these new proposals are in order because they are within the scope of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has also expressed his opinion that they are not within the scope of the Bill because they are outside the whole structure and purpose of the original Bill. If the Motion should succeed, would the right hon. Gentleman regard the question whether these new proposals are in order as still being open?

Mr. Heath: As I understand it, the Chairman of Standing Committee B has ruled—I said that I accept his Ruling completely—that this is within the Long Title and purpose of the Bill. However, the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading was on the basis of a statutory board being created and particular cases delayed while the Minister and the Board carried through their operations. I argue that the introduction of Part IV creates a new and additional situation embodying a new principle to


which the House has had no opportunity of giving a Second Reading.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I follow that very well. I think that there is a great deal of substance in it. I am not questioning that. If the Motion were carried, the Bill would be recommitted to the House. The House would assume the functions of the Standing Committee and presumably Mr. Speaker would assume the functions of the Chairman of the Standing Committee. I am asking whether, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, if his Motion succeeded it would leave the question whether these new proposals are in order still to be decided.

Mr. Heath: I am not challenging the Ruling of the Chairman of Standing Committee B. He has given his decision. Whether, if the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House, somebody else will ask Mr. Speaker to give a Ruling upon this question is a matter for the House and for Mr. Speaker. I myself do not propose to do it, because I have said that we have no desire to discuss the first three parts of the Bill and the Schedules again. We have now accepted the decision of the House that they be dealt with in Standing Committee.
With these new powers, the First Secretary is being made master of the economy. It is to be brought into force by an Order in Council which could be done during the Recess. It is no use the First Secretary saying that he may not use these powers and therefore we ought to leave it to be dealt with in Standing Committee and not on the Floor of the House. The credibility of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, in the House and outside, is now nil. No one can have confidence in the undertakings they give. The Prime Minister himself, if I may quote him again, said this in his famous statement on 20th July, 1966:
It is not our intention to introduce elaborate statutory controls over incomes and prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 636.]
What could be more elaborate than to give complete power to the First Secretary to introduce orders controlling any or all prices and all wages, over-ruling arbitration decisions, agreements already reached, wages council decisions, agricultural wages council decisions, and every

other kind of individual agreement? There could be no more elaborate statutory control of wages and prices than that. So once again the Prime Minister has broken faith with the House.
The Prime Minister made his statement on 20th July. On this occasion it was only 10 days later, while he was in Washington, that these Amendments were laid. All that happens is that the periods between the acts of breaking faith get shorter and shorter. What is more, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to keep faith with those who provided the standby, no doubt he and the First Secretary will want to use these powers in Part IV which he has now laid in Committee.
One of the reasons why we ought to debate this on the Floor of the House is so that the House can ask why the First Secretary wants these dictatorial powers, because this is against everything which the Prime Minister, the First Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and their colleagues have always said. We have had our differences with the First Secretary, but he has constantly emphasised the voluntary process and gone to great lengths to achieve it.
The Prime Minister will no doubt recall his interview on "Election Forum" just before the election began, in which he said this:
… once you have the law prescribing wages I think you are on a very slippery slope. It would be repugnant I think to all parties in this country.
Certainly I do not think anyone wants to go to the point of prescribing wages by law.
As to the idea of freezing all wage claims, salary claims, I suppose, dividends, rents … I think this would be monstrously unfair.
The First Secretary, speaking at the N.A.L.G.O. conference on 8th June, less than two months ago, and describing the Bill as it was given a Second Reading by the House, said:
There is nothing in the Bill which interferes with the essential voluntary principle on which the policy has been developed, nor is there anything which prevents free collective bargaining or detracts from trade union activities of those who are representing their members in negotiations.
Later, he said:
It will in no way replace or undermine the voluntary policy".
That was true of the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading, but it is


not true of Part IV which the Government are now attempting to introduce in Committee without any consideration of principle by the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in that moving speech to the Labour Party Conference of 1961, said, on the subject of wage negotiations:
… we have always argued, that if this system is to succeed, wage agreements must be sacrosanct when they are reached and arbitration awards must be inviolable.
He went on to say:
… the only safety for these workers, whether they be industrial workers in Government establishments, whether their conditions are determined by Wage Councils, whether they be white collar workers, is in the return of a Labour Government …".
The House ought to discuss why the Government are demanding Part IV, and the Government should account not to a Committee of 24 or 25 but to the House as a whole. Of course, the First Secretary may argue that the voluntary principle has failed and that all agreements have been broken or need to be broken now, and that that is the reason why it should be dealt with speedily upstairs and not discussed here.
The First Secretary was very frank the other night in admitting that his incomes policy has failed. It failed because the Chancellor and he ran a grossly inflationary economy at the time when he was trying to get an incomes policy. What is more, the greater success of his campaign against prices undermined the rest of the campaign and fed the inflation.
The First Secretary and the Chancellor, both in the House and outside, have constantly boasted that unemployment was getting lower and lower, and that the number of applications for vacancies was getting larger and larger. This, they said, showed the success of their policy.
The situation has now changed. The Prime Minister accepts unemployment up to 470,000 and has now announced policies to achieve between 1½ and 2 per cent. after redeployment. That puts the voluntary incomes policy in a completely different context from the way it was being operated before, over the 21 months of gross inflation. Therefore, Part IV is not justified, nor is taking it to Committee. The reasons for it should be put on the Floor of the House.
If we want final confirmation of the importance of Part IV, it comes from the Prime Minister himself. In Washington last weekend he boasted. He said:
We have taken steps which have not been taken by any other democratic Government in the world. We are taking steps with regard to prices and wages which no other Government, even in wartime, has taken.
And, I might add, which no other democratic free enterprise country would dream of taking, least of all the United States Administration. That is final confirmation of the importance of Part IV which the Government are trying to introduce in Committee.
I do not see anything to boast of in what the Prime Minister was saying. That after 21 short months he and his Government should have reduced this country to the state where these powers, unprecedented in peace and war, are demanded from Parliament is not a matter for boasting but for shame. I wonder how gallant and hardy leadership led us into this plight, and what firmness and courage from the Prime Minister while he dithered for 10 days led to the drain from our reserves, with tens of millions of £s flowing away—our very life-blood—and what enterprise from the Prime Minister is leading us now into the most strictly controlled economy which any democratic country has ever had.
There is the proof of what has happened since the Second Reading of the Bill, in the Prime Minister's own statement about powers unprecedented in peace and war. Can the Government really argue, can the Leader of the House attempt to sustain the argument, that the House should not have a Second Reading procedure of some kind on these powers? We had no chance of discussing any of this on Second Reading.
We should have an opportunity in some way now. These provisions are so important and far-reaching that they should be discussed by the whole House and not by a comparatively small Committee. The only real topic for discussion and debate on the new Clauses is the principle. Very little can be done about the drafting once one accepts the principle. The principle must be discussed and we should have an opportunity for discussing it, not in a Committee of 25 but here on the Floor of the House.
If we do not debate the principle on Second Reading of the new Clauses, then on the Floor of the House we shall have no chance on Report in the normal way, because Amendments that have already been debated upstairs are naturally not selected by Mr. Speaker. In any case, there is no Second Reading of the principle but only of Amendments, and on Third Reading we can only reject the Bill as a whole. These provisions cannot be justified in ordinary peace-time conditions.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Why does the right hon. Gentleman assume that there will be a Report stage? [Laughter.]

Mr. Heath: As there are Amendments to be made by the Government, there will presumably be a Report stage. If these provisions cannot be justified in ordinary peace-time conditions, the Government must produce in detail the justification for taking these powers and they should justify their action not in Committee but on the Floor of the House, and when they put forward the reasons for their action it should be the whole House which decides whether or not to grant these powers to the Government, and not a small Committee.
There is naturally very wide public interest in the provisions, because, if used, they will affect all our citizens, and the public should have a report from the full House, not from all-night sessions in a small Committee, which cannot be fully reported in the Press. It is more important than ever that every representative should have a chance to put his views on this part of the Bill. There are many cross-currents in the House, and they too should have full representation, which they cannot have in Committee. Each of the new Clauses has an important principle which should be discussed.
My final point on the technical side of this matter is that if Part IV is implemented everything which we discused in the House on Second Reading is of no account. Therefore, the House will be in the extraordinary position of having given to a Minister immense powers of which it has never discussed the principle or had a Second Reading, the Second Reading which it had given being completely ignored.
We should also be able to discuss in a debate on principle, which we cannot do today, the alternative to the policy embodied in the new Clauses and the alternatives to the First Secretary's having these powers. We should be able to discuss what he will do at the end, or the expected end, of these powers. We cannot do that today.
I believe that in the House and in the country we have now come to what I would describe as the great divide. On 11th May, 1965, the First Secretary of State made what was, looking back on it now, a very remarkable statement:
It is time some hon. Members opposite made up their minds whether they believe in a free society and consultation and discussion or in a totalitarian society with the right to direct and control".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1966; Vol. 712, c. 296.]
We on this side have made up our minds. The First Secretary of State has made up his mind, too. He is choosing, under Part IV, what he is pleased to call the
totalitarian society with the right to direct and control".
We are utterly opposed to it. It is not in that direction that greatness for this country lies. This is the divide between us now. The Government's way, the First Secretary's way, leads, through Part IV to compulsion, to the complete control of the economy—who can visualise right hon. Gentlemen opposite giving it up once they have got it?—and to increasing restrictions on personal liberty, to a freeze on everything, including, above all, a freeze on progress.
We have warned the Government often enough, and we have warned the country that this was the direction in which they would lead. It solves none of our long-term problems and damages most of our prospects. But that is always the way with right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
We believe that it is possible—no one has ever disguised the difficulties—to reconcile a free economy with stable progress and individual liberty—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why did not the Tories do it?"] We maintained individual liberty. We believe that it is possible to reconcile a free economy with stable progress and individual liberty under a Government prepared to take the right action and follow the right policies with fairness and skill.
But I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of it because, whatever our views may be, this is, as the First Secretary of State has said constantly, repeating it again in winding up the other night, the greatest problem which the British House of Commons has had to face since the war, and it is a House of Commons matter. There can be no doubt that it is here on the Floor of the House that these great matters ought to be debated and settled, not upstairs. Anything less is an abdication of our rights in the House and of our responsibilities to the British people.

4.43 p.m.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): From someone who was moving a purely procedural Motion, and not at any stage going into the merits, that was quite a remarkable performance by the right hon. Gentleman for Bexley (Mr. Heath). I shall do my best to put the case from our side against the purely procedural Motion, going no more into the merits than the right hon. Gentleman for Bexley did.
There are powerful arguments why Standing Committee B should not be discharged from its labours, but should be allowed to complete them as quickly as possible. To explain them, I must do as the right hon. Gentleman did and, in passing, touch upon several basic considerations. As I see it, there are three questions which are relevant to the demand the right hon. Gentleman makes.
The first, as he himself recognised, is whether the Government were right to call for a temporary standstill on prices and incomes. Second, if the Government were right in so calling, are they justified in seeking temporary statutory powers to reinforce the voluntary action on the lines of the new Clauses which have been tabled in Committee, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers as Part IV. Third, are the Government justified in using their energies and resources to secure the passage of the Bill in Committee and thereafter in the House before the House rises for the Summer Recess? Those seem to me to be the three major issues. They were the three issues to which the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself, and they are the ones on which I now propose to justify our own answers.
First, the justification for the standstill, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in such strong terms. It is a standstill of a strict character on prices and incomes until the end of this year, leading on to what we have referred to as severe restraint during the second six months.
In his justification of his Motion that we do not proceed as we are now, the right hon. Gentleman referred to what, he said, had happened to the situation generally and to the prices and incomes policy as we have so far been operating it. There is a good deal of evidence, alas, for what he said. The provisional figures for April this year show average weekly earnings for men 7·1 per cent. higher than a year before, average hourly earnings 9·6 per cent. higher, weekly wage rates 5·3 per cent. higher, and the index of retail prices in June was 3 points higher than it was a year ago.
This is not a situation which gives me any comfort, or, I submit, can give comfort to anyone in the House or the country. We are none of us free from our share of blame, and we are none of us, therefore, free from our obligation to do something about it, and to do it quickly. Neither of the two sides of industry, the trade unions and management, can be absolved from blame.
Both have done a good deal. The trade union movement, through the T.U.C., has made, in my view, the most remarkable strides during the last 18 months in adapting its thinking and its machinery to the needs of this situation. It is entitled to great praise for what it has sought to do and what it has, in fact, done. But we must be honest and recognise—this is one of the factors in deciding whether we ought to push on upstairs—that, obviously, part of the failure of the prices and incomes policy to exert a more rapid influence on events stems from the gulf between acceptance by the unions of the policy and their willingness to agree that it applies to themselves in practice.
On the management side of industry, this has to be faced in judging the character of the proposals and their urgency, there have been advances, too, in organisation and in the general spirit of co-operation. But, here again, the past 18 months have shown how wide is the


gap between agreement on matters of principle reached at national level and the willingness of individual firms to apply the policy in their day-to-day decisions.
One can say that the Government, also, are not free from blame. They have taken the lead developing and laying great emphasis upon a policy which, however fruitful it may prove in the longer term—I feel confident that it will—did not succeed last year in its primary object of keeping the growth of incomes and of national output in line.
The Opposition, also, are not free from blame. The need for an enduring productivity, prices and incomes policy, was recognised by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) when they had responsibility. They tried, but did not succeed. We claim that what we have tried has been a more constructive version than theirs was. We certainly claim that we have been pursuing it with far greater vigour and purpose, and by developing it in the closest consultation at every stage with representative organisations on both sides of industry we have achieved a basic understanding of the fundamental issues which was totally absent in the days when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were dealing with these matters.
But the bulk of the Opposition—this, also, is a factor in deciding whether the Motion should be accepted—although they now say—some of them have said it all the way through—that the need is as clear as ever it was in their day, have done their best to spread scepticism and disbelief about the policy. If they had helped more, it is at least possible that the policy would have succeeded better and that they would not have needed to complain about the matters that they are complaining about today.
But a more important question than how we apportion the blame—this goes to the heart of the Opposition Motion and to the heart of the right hon. Gentleman's complaint today—is what as a nation, given the present economic situation, we should do now.

Sir Cyril Osborne: Get a fresh Government.

Mr. Brown: The Government's judgment of what needed to be done was set out in the statement by the Prime Minister on 20th July, and what we are doing in Standing Committee—what the right hon. Gentleman is trying now to overturn—in part follows that through, and I must, therefore, now examine that.
My right hon. Friend explained in that statement why a standstill on prices and incomes is inescapable if the nation is to have the breathing space it needs. I suspect that this may be a question upon which the views of ordinary people are more sensibly and more soundly based than the views of many politicians or of many office holders and officials in the big national organisations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] My impression is that there are an enormous number of ordinary people who have come to realise that a continuing process of inflation of prices and incomes does them no good and does the country a great deal of harm. They may not understand the complexities of the balance of payments, but they know that when a wage increase leads to a price increase and, in turn, to another wage increase, this is neither sense nor justice. They can see that our trade must suffer. They can also see the severe hardship that this has caused for pensioners and others whose incomes inevitably tend to lag behind.
All this suggests strongly that the country is ready for firm action on this front, and now. It is looking for a lead, and we should be failing in our duty if we took our cue from the right hon. Gentleman and did not provide it now and right away. It was never to be supposed that it would be an easy matter to secure even a brief standstill, but do not let us exaggerate the difficulties. I ask the House to forget for a moment all the details which seem to us so difficult, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, one can only mention in passing today, and to reflect on what it is we are asking for in calling for this standstill. The right hon. Gentleman gave the most exaggerated and ridiculous description of what we are asking for, and his Motion, if it is to be fairly judged, must be judged against the exaggerations with which he moved it.
We are not asking for a cut in anyone's rates of pay. That distinguishes us from some previous Administrations. We are


not asking for an indefinite, or even a very long, standstill in existing rates of pay or prices. What we are asking for is acceptance that, for the relatively short period of six months, increases in pay, whether already negotiated or not, should be deferred, that in the subsequent six months much more attention should be paid than hitherto to economic and social priorities, and that similar restraint should be applied to other forms of income and to prices.
The right hon. Gentleman affected to believe that these were dictatorial powers which did not justify us in trying to get the Bill through Committee. That is wildly away from the mark. I believe that on both sides of industry ordinary people are prepared to accept that in our present economic circumstances a temporary standstill of this sort makes good sense provided that it is fairly applied. In fact, unlike the views which the right hon. Gentleman has just urged on us, I believe that the people would have criticised us, and rightly so, if we had not called for a standstill at this moment.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Brown: I listened without one interruption to the right hon. Gentleman. I knew that he was making, from his point of view, a very important speech. I hope that I shall be allowed to do the same, in the circumstances.
We must, say the Government—this is part of our case for allowing Standing Committee B to finish its work—use the next 12 months constructively. If we make sensible use of this breathing space to develop the policy—of which the right hon. Gentleman, quite wrongly, alleged our work will be making a nullity—for productivity, prices and incomes in a way which takes account of our economic and social objectives, it could prove at the end of the day—quite contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said—to have served an invaluable purpose. This is what our present consultations with both sides of industry are about, because, at the end of the day orderly, controlled and sustained growth is still the only way out for Britain from her problems.

Sir C. Osborne: This is very important. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he is convinced that a six months' standstill will be long enough?

If it is not, and the pressures mount again, will he ask for the powers to be continued beyond six months?

Mr. Brown: I shall reach in a moment the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman about what is contained in Part IV of the Bill, the part which he thought ought to be brought to this Chamber, and I will then discuss why we think that a 12-month period, to which we are limiting it, is enough.
I spoke just now—this is another reason for us finishing our work—of the need to ensure that the standstill was fair, which is another way of saying that it must be comprehensive. This means, as the White Paper makes clear—and as our work in the Standing Committee is now putting into the Bill—that the same general considerations which are being applied to prices and incomes must be applied in the field of profits and dividends.
I ought to make it plain that we are not, as a party, opposed to profits. In a mixed economy such as ours, the earning of profits is a necessary incentive over a large part of industry. But one needs, in operating this policy, and in giving it legislative enactment, to consider the basis on which profits are earned. We have set out in the White Paper, Cmnd. 2639, agreed by both sides of industry, the circumstances in which profits may be accepted and the circumstances in which they may indicate a need for price reductions. I believe that the distinction that we are making there is a right one and that we have to give effect to it, and we are doing so in the part of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman found so offensive.
Dividends are at one and the same time a form of profit—that part of it which is distributed—and a form of personal income. As such, we are putting to the House that it is clearly essential—[Interruption.]. At the moment, I am doing what the right hon. Gentleman did. I am addressing my arguments to the same points that he did, and addressing them to the House. As such, it is clearly essential that they should be subject to the standstill, and the White Paper makes this clear. In view of the extent to which profits are already under pressure, the likelihood is that, in any event,


dividends in most cases will be unlikely to rise this year, so we are not at present seeking statutory powers to control them. This may encourage the right hon. Gentleman to let us get on with our work upstairs, but I make it clear that, if it appears that the standstill for dividends is not being observed, we shall not hesitate to propose further action either in the form of further legislation or of fiscal measures.
I want to turn to whether, having called for a standstill of prices and incomes, we are justified in seeking from Parliament, through the Committee upstairs—[Interruption.] Standing Committees of this House are part of Parliament—statutory powers on the lines of the new Clauses we have tabled. The right hon. Gentleman said, quite fairly, that he would not go into the merits and I must be careful that I do not go too far into them. On the other hand, I am entitled to the same latitude that he gave himself and was allowed by the Chair.
We have the benefit of a certain number of precedents to help us. This is not the first occasion on which the Government of the day have tried to secure stability in pay and prices. The terminology has varied on different occasions. In the past, we have talked of a "freeze", of a "plateau", of a "pause" and now we talk of a "standstill". In all these policies, including the present one—and this is where the right hon. Gentleman's argument was so misdirected—we have relied and are relying primarily upon the voluntary co-operation of the community as a whole.
But experience has shown that, even where a large measure of voluntary cooperation is forthcoming, it can be eroded quite quickly by the actions of a minority who are not prepared to co-operate. It can perhaps be argued that, as a nation—and I offer this as a counter to the right hon. Gentleman's argument—we carry to excess our attachment to the principle of fair play. Certainly, in a situation like this, what the ordinary man looks for beyond anything is a feeling that what is being done is fair as between different groups of people. Provided that there is fairness—and this is the justification for the Amendments we have tabled—he is willing to make considerable sacrifices and already we have evidence coming in

of decisions that are being taken. But once he feels that there is no assurance of fairness, that people who are not prepared to play the game are getting away with it, his view is radically altered.
This is why, in his statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, after explaining that the Government regarded the standstill as primarily a matter for voluntary co-operation and emphasising, as I do now—and what we are seeking to effect upstairs—that the Government have no intention of introducing elaborate statutory controls over prices and incomes, went on to say:
Nevertheless, in order to ensure that the selfish do not benefit at the expense of those who co-operate, it is our intention to strengthen the provisions of the Prices and Incomes Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 636.]
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked whether it was right to do this in the form of a separate part of the Bill—Part IV. We gave most serious thought to the form that these additional powers should take. It might have been possible to have slipped some Amendments into Part II—which would have robbed the right hon. Gentleman of his opportunity today—with the objective of extending the 30-day "early warning" period to six months and the three months' standstill to six months pending an investigation by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to argue today that, had we done that, he would not have been making the point he was making.

Sir Keith Joseph: Sir Keith Joseph (Leeds, North-East) rose——

Mr. Brown: Let the right hon. Gentleman listen. We shall listen to him with great interest. I hope that he will now listen to my case.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that Part IV puts him in place of the Prices and Incomes Board.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is not listening to my argument. I shall come to that point.
I am saying that we could have met the case that the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to make by slipping


Amendments of the kind I have mentioned into Part II of the Bill. In that way, it might have been possible to provide for a maximum standstill period of 12 months on any proposed price increase or pay award or settlement.

Amendments on these lines would probably have looked relatively simple and harmless, might not have proved to be controversial, and would not have supported either the Motion or the Leader of the Opposition's speech. But we decided against this course and in favour of introducing a new Part—Part IV—for three main reasons.

First, we thought that the way in which the Bill was strengthened ought to reflect the facts of the situation. What the situation calls for is a strictly temporary but nevertheless wide-ranging power in the Government to be able to deal with major breaches in the standstill. We thought that this intention could most clearly be conveyed to Parliament and the country if we added to the Bill a new part which was self-contained and was purely temporary rather than if we tried to weave the additional powers into Part II.

Secondly, we concluded that to proceed simply by amending Part II, while attractive in the way I have described, would really be deceiving Parliament and the country. All we should have been doing had we followed what the right hon. Gentleman seems to prefer——

Mr. Heath: I was not suggesting that. Of course, I would not prefer that. What the right hon. Gentleman has done is to put forward clearly in Part IV that the powers are given to him and not to the Prices and Incomes Board.

Mr. Brown: I will come to Part IV in due course, in so far as I can follow the right hon. Gentleman into the merits of it. My impression is that the right hon. Gentleman would have preferred us to do it the other way. Or, of course, it may be his case that nothing ought to have been done at all at this moment. In that case, let him tell the country, because the country does not believe that nothing should have been done.
Had we altered the Bill by amending Part II, we should have been using the principle of early warning and the procedure

of reference to the Board for a purpose which they were not designed to achieve. Our purpose is to put the Government into a position where they can implement by statutory power a general standstill on prices and incomes and that has become necessary in order to hold and reinforce the voluntary policy. It seemed to us that if that was our intention, it was much better to say so openly.
Thirdly, it seemed very doubtful whether, by simply amending Part II, we should secure an effective deterrent to the minority who may not be prepared to observe the standstill on a voluntary' basis. For all these reasons, we concluded that the right course, the most honest course and the course most clearly indicating what we had in mind, was to leave Part II of the Bill intact as the longer-term measure—and that answers the allegation that we have somehow got rid of Part II—and to seek separate and temporary powers for the purpose of reinforcing the voluntary standstill should serious erosion occur.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition gave a travesty of what the powers are for—allowing for the fact that he altogether ignored the fact that these are reserve, fall-back powers and that the objective is still to get a voluntary policy working.

Mr. Stanley Orme: If as my right hon. Friend says these powers are only to be held in reserve, why is he in such a hurry to get them?

Mr. Brown: For the reasons which I gave earlier—that the situation is serious and that action must be taken now, quickly and firmly.
The House would wish me to counter what the right hon. Gentleman said in urging his Motion, because this is a very important part of his argument, by outlining the nature of the powers. They are potentially far-reaching, but I should emphasise that they are of a purely temporary nature. The right hon. Gentleman allowed nothing for this. All these powers, whether in force or not, must lapse not later than 12 months from the date on which the Bill receives the Royal Assent and there is no power to extend that period. In other words, if there were in my mind or anybody else's


the kind of outlook which the right hon. Gentleman was imputing to us, we would have to come to the House for fresh legislation in order to implement it.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman is a good democrat and a very senior Member of the House. He is asking through Committee for a power, whether reserve or not, to inflict fines and ultimately to carry the possibility of imprisonment. Does he feel no qualms at all that these matters are not to be discussed in the House?

Mr. Brown: The power to inflict fines or any other penalties are in Part II of the Bill as it stood and as it got a Second Reading. Under the new Clauses which we have put down we are adding no new penalties.
Secondly, I make it plain, as the right hon. Gentleman did not, that the temporary powers outlined in the new Clauses will not be operative until an Order in Council has been made, subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure; that is to say, the powers, should they be brought into force, would lapse unless each House of Parliament within 28 days had by resolution confirmed that they should stay in operation.
Thus, we thought it right to provide—and you would never have got this impression from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that no use of these temporary powers could be made without the opportunity for a full debate in each House of Parliament. That has nothing to do with Standing Committee.
The provisions in these new Clauses give us powers to direct that prices or charges or rates of remuneration as may be specified shall not be increased, from the date on which the Order takes effect, without Ministerial consent. The Government are given the power to impose a temporary standstill on prices and charges and on levels of remuneration in those respects where it seems necessary, but that does not mean that in those cases the standstill will be absolutely rigid. There is provision for any organisation or any person wishing to raise any of those things first to obtain the consent of the appropriate Minister.
The second group of powers would give us the right to direct that any price or

charge which had been increased since 20th July should be put back to a level not lower than that prevailing before that date and should not be raised during the period of standstill. In each case there would be a period during which the Minister would have to give notice of his intent before doing so and there would be opportunities for representations by those concerned.
I now come to the subject of penalties. Let me make it quite clear that the sanctions for offences against any Order or direction under this Part of this Act, were this part of the Act ever to be invoked, are exactly the same as the sanctions which the House has already authorised under Clauses 11 to 16 of the Bill to which it gave a Second Reading. Proceedings would, as in the case of offences under Part II, still require the consent of the Attorney-General. Trade unions and employees would still have the statutory protection conferred by Clauses 16 and 17 of Part II.
Clearly, if all concerned would accept the standstill as being in the national interest and accept it on a voluntary basis, that would be by far the best course and the legal problems would be avoided. But we believe that it is necessary to give temporary protection, as we are, to the majority who co-operate.
The third and last question which is relevant to the debate and to the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that of speeding up the passage of the Bill, using our resources and our energy to get it through the House and using the procedure already in operation, that of a Standing Committee, to add this new part to the Bill before it returns to the House for its Report and Third Reading stages. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear on 20th July—and the Opposition are entitled to disagree if they like, although I did not gather that that was what the right hon. Gentleman was doing—that the country faces a critical situation.
A critical situation calls for vigorous action. If it was right to call for a standstill at all, if it was right to seek temporary powers which I have described, it must be right to try to secure their passage through Parliament as quickly as our procedures and adequate opportunities for discussion permit. It could hardly have been right in that situation


to postpone the issue while we all went away.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests, and is supported by hon. Members opposite in the suggestion, that because the temporary powers now sought are different from the original Prices and Incomes Bill—the long-term permanent legislation which will still be needed and which will still be there when this new part dies in 12 months' time—the Government should have withdrawn the Bill and started again with another Second Reading. Leaving out the consequences of that to urgent and vigorous action to deal with a critical situation, I regard that as an absurd suggestion.
The decision that the additional powers now sought fall within the scope of the Bill is not a Government decision. Although he found it very difficult to deal with an intervention, the right hon. Gentleman made it very plain, in words which could not be misunderstood, that he accepted the decision by the appropriate authority, namely, the Chairman of the Committee, acting independently, acting on independent advice, that these powers were within the scope and structure and purpose of the Bill.
That being so, there can be no basis for the Motion. It may be inconvenient for the right hon. Gentleman that that decision was made. It was made after right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had advanced every argument and it was made with the Government advancing no argument at all, but leaving it to independent decision. Given that decision, no Government, in this situation, could have acted differently.
The Opposition were perfectly entitled to take this opportunity today to raise the whole matter on the Floor of the House. I make no complaint of that. At the end of the day, we shall have had a debate which, whatever we say, will have served as something like a Second Reading debate on the new Clauses which we shall discuss in greater detail in Standing Committee.
However, in the light of the situation and what I believe to be the rights of Parliament, in the light of what I believe to be the requirements—[Interruption.] The Committee stage is a part of the Parliamentary pattern—but also in the

light of what I judge to be the demands, needs and requirements of our people outside, I must advise the House to reject the Motion.
I believe, and so do my colleagues, that the country recognises that the urgency with which we are treating this problem reflects the needs of our situation. They are expecting a firm lead today. I draw hon. Members' attention to the leader in The Guardian this morning, on this subject. We can give the country that firm lead by going through with the Bill, upstairs and bringing it back to the House next week. I believe that we all now have a duty to go out to the country and call on our people to join in the battle and to win it quickly.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: The really tragic thing about the speech that we have just heard is that the First Secretary seemed to be incapable of understanding what this debate is all about. We are not debating the new Clauses, however much he may wish that we were. We are debating the conduct of the Government in relation to this Bill, in particular the way in which they have sought to evade any general discussion of the new principles they are now introducing. It is to that which I shall now turn because these new principles are of very great importance.
It may be true that, technically, the Government have the right to introduce new matters, even new material as wide-ranging as this, into a Bill that already exists. What is certainly not true is the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to say that this really was not a matter of very great importance, that these were only temporary powers, stand-by powers, and that possibly he would not use them and even if he did, the fines contained in the new Part IV were all contained in the existing Part II. First of all, it appears that he cannot recognise that although the fines are the same, the offences are different. He is putting new offences into statutory terms, although the penalties for them may be the same. He is creating a new category of offences without this House ever having considered the principle.
The second point which illustrated that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the subject was his statement that the Government were justified in their


action because the Chairman of the Standing Committee had ruled that the matter was within the scope and structure of the Bill. The Chairman had not ruled that when the right hon. Gentleman put down his new Clauses. The Chairman ruled that at half-past eight yesterday evening and the right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly have known what was in his mind when he put down the new Clauses.
We all know that there are ways and means of using the procedure of this House to do things which the House and the rules of the House never intended should be done under them. The whole basis of a democratic Government is not only that it uses the rules, technically, to get round a difficult corner, but that it plays the game within the meaning of the rules and not within the rules as they are, precisely and technically. The proceedings of this Bill and the Amendments to it have shown that the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government were to avoid the widest possible discussion of these new Clauses because the right hon. Gentleman knew that it would be embarrassing.
There was the attempt, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, to slip through, at the dead of night, a Motion in this House which would have kept the Committee sitting right through next weekend and would also have deprived the Opposition on the Committee of one of its most vital and basic rights. That Motion was put down after II o'clock one night for debate at 11 o'clock the next morning. This is perfectly in order, and there is no reason why it should not be done, except that only a few hours before the Leader of the House had made a Business statement in which no mention at all was made of this attempt.
Then the right hon. Gentleman comes along today and says that we are in effect having a Second Reading and he welcomes that. He might do, but he did not show any enthusiasm for having it earlier—the Opposition had to provide the time. What one wants to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman is that he can have his; Bill, he is going to get it anyway. He can have it in a perfectly democratic fashion. This is a national crisis and in a time of national crisis we have to make sacrifices, even for our own convenience. If he had proceeded

in the normal way, I, at least, and I believe that a large number of hon. Members of this House were perfectly prepared to go on sitting until he had his Bill. We would have sat for the rest of this month if he had wanted us to do so. [Interruption.] The Paymaster-General is only too anxious to get away on his holidays, but I am quite prepared to sit here for as long as this Bill is here, even though it will be inconvenient to me. What we have had is a travesty of Parliamentary procedure.
In his heart of hearts, the First Secretary knows this to be so. This is legislating by the back-door and trying to get round the problems which he knew a Second Reading debate would create for him. It is because of that that we believe it is of vital importance that these matters should be discussed here and not by a Committee of 25 very tired men—and tired they must be. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman is tired. I have no doubt that he has been up all night working, and that may be one explanation for his speech. I beg him to realise that there are people in this House who feel very strongly about this sort of thing from whichever Government it comes.
I have clashed with my own party before now on this, and I have no hesitation in clashing with the right hon. Gentleman. I beg him to realise that this is not just a technical question; this is something that goes right to the root of the relationships of Government and party. We are constantly complaining in this House that Parliament is coming more and more into contempt. No wonder if the Government are treating it in this way. If this Government are sincere in their intention to make Parliament more responsible and effective, as the Prime Minister has said, then one of the first things that they must do is ensure that matters of principle of this kind are discussed in a proper fashion, in a way that they have not been discussed on this occasion. For that reason, I fully support this Motion and hope that the House will support it.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I am as sensitive as anyone in this House about the practices of this House, and I do not think that lectures come well from


the Leader of the Opposition. I can remember 1956 and Suez, when he was rushing around this place like a scalded cat, as the Chief Whip of the other side, and the slogan was, "Your constituency or your conscience". One remembers Mr. Nigel Nicolson, and Sir Frank Medlicott, who have now left public life because of the whipping on the other side.
One remembers one's intimates on the other side in those unruly scenes, when possibly Parliament reached an all-time low, when we knew that the then Leader of the Opposition, the late Mr. Gaitskell, had only been given ten minutes notice that this country intended to go into a state of war. These are not the sort of people to lecture us. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is a sort of political Billy Graham. He always starts off by saying, "I believe". One insult which he always hands out is to say that someone is incompetent. He called me incompetent when I arrived in the House two minutes late on a famous occasion. I would have called myself a lot of things that day, but not incompetent. In his own job the right hon. Gentleman is notoriously incompetent and casts a feline slur over everything he says.
On procedure, I dislike the monstrous charade going on upstairs. I dislike beds being brought in for tired men. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Committee does not like them."] Of course the Committee does not like them. In the same way, in the last Parliament, as Minister, I disliked having to provide beds for the sick and lame. I remember with great sorrow that my constituency Member and close friend, Norman Dodds, went through the Lobby once too often.
Before we get on to these other questions of Parliamentary procedure, of things done in time of emergency, we should start cleaning things up. During their 13 years, the Tories did nothing for private Members. Their enthusiasm for the Legislature was born only of the days when they came back to opposition. To those of my hon. Friends who do not like some of our procedure, may I say that it is useless protesting about the mediaeval pantomine which takes place on the opening of Parliament if we cannot speed the procedures in the House

in a time of genuine national emergency. The test of Parliament is whether it is sufficiently flexible an instrument that it can bring everything to bear when the need arises.
I wish to say a word or two to my friends on the Front Bench about things which I think they have underrated. Let us not underrate the hardship and, indeed, blatant injustice of what we are considering to doctors and young hospital doctors who work long hours while being disastrously underpaid. I often have reacted sharply to some of my audiences in the country when I have been told, "You have given increases to the doctors and judges but not to the railwaymen". I put young doctors among the genuine hardship groups. We know that merely by accident the dentists have got by but that the doctors have been stopped. We must weigh up in our minds whether greater hardship has been caused to the doctors than to the railwaymen who called off a strike on the Government's pledged word.
There are many other public servants, apart from the doctors, whose firm expectations, backed by firm agreements, are now to be disappointed. This is money which the Government contracted to pay and which will now be irrevocably lost to the staff. The public sector—and this is what I want to say most emphatically to the Government—cannot be expected to take all this alone.
I sometimes think that there is not enough grass-roots knowledge on the Front Bench about what trade unions think. Sam Gompers, the great American labour leader, was once asked "What do trade unions want?" He said, "More". He was then asked, "And what else?", and he said, "More". Trade unions, by their very nature, cannot be expected to agree to phoney voluntary freezing. That is not their function. George Bernard Shaw said that they are instruments within a capitalist society; and they are.
The T.U.C. should not be put in the position of even seeming to advise. This puts a premium on the real friends of the Labour Party and of the Government within the trade union movement. Suppose that the Trades Union Congress came out against this. Do we then appear to flout it? What about the Labour Party Conference? I am sure that there must be some members of the


Front Bench who are grateful to the late Hugh Gaitskell for the enunciation of the doctrine of the paramountcy of the Parliamentary party.
Do not let us talk about increased production. I think that I should be out of order in doing so, but, in case I am not, I ask hon. Members to tell me anything in the field of production which will yield results in under 12 months. How can we expect unions voluntarily to surrender pay due to their members under a firm agreement? To talk of a voluntary wage freeze is to ask unions to pervert, indeed to reverse, their purposes. In many cases, executive councils have no constitutional power to volunteer to break or breach agreements. In the public sector, all that is likely to be voluntary is that the Government will volunteer to refuse to pay the money. That would be pure "Selwyn" unless the Government clamped down on the private sector as firmly as they have resolved to clamp down on the public sector. All or none is the only basis on which to work. To make it work, it must be all. To make it all, we must impose the discipline of the law.
On the passing of this Bill—this is a view rather different from that advanced by the First Secretary—the Government must, in my view, slap down an affirmative Order straight away. The Government must show that they will govern. They must have the guts to govern or the grace to get out. I wish to say this as one whose roots in the trade union movement go back to 1918: this is the kindest thing in this situation for the Government to do for their friends. When I say "for their friends" I speak of the trade union movement, the backbone of this party from which it was born.
The Government must take responsibility on themselves. There can be no exceptions. The British people, who are the most mature electorate in the world, understand fair shares; but they do not understand back-sliding. To his credit, the name of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has been associated with the voluntary principle. Whatever else might be said, no man could have done more in implementing his opinions with enthusiasm, energy and very considerable ability. I do not wish to indict anybody, but it just did not come off. We did take out more than we put in, and the T.U.C.

failed to control the situation; I put it no higher than that.
This is a problem which we largely inherited, but I do not indict anybody for that. We must take our share of responsibility, having been in power since October, 1964. We must ask ourselves the simple question: is there a crisis? I do not think that there is an hon. Member who doubts that there is a crisis. There is a deep crisis. Therefore, is it serious enough to do all these things, even to indemnify ourselves against breach of contract?
We ask for a breathing space to save the £. We cannot hope to satisfy world opinion and everybody in the Parliamentary Labour Party at the same time. To the extent that we try to mollify the latter, we dissatisfy the former and render almost completely nugatory our remedies. Ministers must not strive to explain away these cuts, to explain away these remedies, or to suggest that they are less than they are, because if that belief gets over then the seriousness of the crisis will not be believed at all. They should not say that they are not so tough. What we are doing—let us face it—is tough. It is harsh. To many it will be seen to be cruel, and even unjust. But what is our answer to all this in the present situation? Our answer is that we do this because we must. We have heard no credible alternatives to the proposals put up, and the only argument seems to be that we have not used the right machinery, or that we should have used more dilatory machinery, so that it did not react as strongly as this does. We are doing this, as we consider it—certainly as I consider it—for the overriding good of our people.
Perhaps we are deciding here—and I would put this to my hon. Friends—whether the British people are to be permitted to have a Government of their own choice. An hon. Gentleman opposite laughs, but I had that feeling most strongly upon me in October, 1964. I have always understood, of course, that a Government of the Left are subject to most considerable attacks from the great forces which are opposed to them. This is an issue at stake, as to whether the great financial forces outside the control of the British people themselves will allow them to have the Government of their own choice. Nobody can doubt that our present weak position in


the world impinges strongly upon our right to have a foreign policy. I remember one of the famous Gaitskell conditions about going into Europe—I disagreed with him—"an independent foreign policy of our own". In this present concept we have not got an independent foreign policy.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Of course we have not. That is what I mean when I say, are the British people going to have a Government of their own choice?
And Government does not only mean the number of Members on this side of the House, but the people outside the House—the sovereign people, standing on their own feet, doing the sorts of things they want to do. It is that principle which overrides all the other considerations and all the many other prejudices and loyalties, and which I have learnt from the trade union movement since I was a boy.
We are doing this thing because we wish ultimately to redeem the hopes of those who have put us here. In my view, we can do no other.

5.42 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: With a good deal of the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to whom we have just listened I would myself find no fault, because it savoured of a good deal of realism. His description of trade unions being summed up as wanting more, and after that, more, is not one which I would regard as inaccurate or offensive, but what he said, in effect, was that the kind of Bill with which we are here concerned was necessary because trade unions were not to be relied upon to do that which was needed in the national interest, if they were left with the power so to do. He told us that trade unions were, in fact, asking to have their freedom removed from them for a time on the grounds that there was no option. It was for this reason that I understood him to be arguing that this Bill was a proper one at the present time. He told us that the Bill would indemnify the Government from breach of contract.

Mr. C. Pannell: I will not contradict the hon. Member now, but perhaps he will read me in HANSARD tomorrow morning. I can only say I would not have believed such misconstruction could have been put on the things I have said.

Sir S. Summers: The hon. Member may not believe that, but it was perfectly clear and I listened very attentively to what he had to say. Those who read his speech in HANSARD tomorrow will see whether I have misled the House in so describing it.
I should like to apologise for the fact that I was prevented by a Committee upstairs—not Standing Committee B—from hearing my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and most of the speech of the First Secretary, but what concerns me here is the utter transformation of a Bill which was colloquially described as an early warning Bill into a Bill which one may fairly describe as a compulsory freeze Bill, which is utterly to transform the character of the Bill which we originally debated on Second Reading. It is for that reason, fundamentally, that I go along with those who criticise the Government for the procedural handling of this matter.
In its original form there was a specious attraction in the idea of an early warning Bill. Last night I listened to part of the debate in Standing Committee B, when the Committee was discussing the Question, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill". Clause 6 is the first of those Clauses which go beyond the original conception of an early warning Bill and introduces elements of compulsion. The First Secretary, at the time I have in mind, was concentrating upon the original shape of the Bill. He thought it was very strange that anyone should find fault with the proposition that, because of the delay made necessary in prices and incomes, under the Bill what he termed a third party would be brought to bear, in that the third party was the national interest, in deciding whether to have increases in wages, prices, dividends or other matters. He thought it was very reasonable that the third party of the public interest should be obliged to be considered during the delay which was here involved.
I could not help remembering the days when my party sat on that Front Bench opposite asking that arbitrators, among other things, should have regard to the national interest in giving awards and in the decisions which they made, and the howl that went up of how improper it was that arbitrators should have any regard to the national interest. And


here we are asked to treat as almost axiomatic that it is proper for the national interest to be introduced. What a contrast!
It is not as though the national interest could readily be defined. We were told that there are to be no fewer than three sets of criteria which are to be defined to cover the phrase "the national interest". There are the criteria which are built into the Bill; there are the criteria which are to operate during the six months of the compulsory freeze; and there is the third set of criteria, evidently, which is to operate during the six months of severe restraint. Even if the criteria remained constant it would not be difficult to find people who would in a particular situation in fact arrive at completely contradictory conclusions.
In other words, this idea that there can be brought to bear a fixed yardstick of public interest by which increases in pay and prices can be measured is a complete illusion. The definition of the public interest is so different as seen by different people that I believe it to be a complete illusion to assert that it is a necessary procedure to delay for that type of scrutiny to take place before awards are given.
If the delay is enforced under a voluntary standstill and the alleged public interest is brought to bear and the proposal is found to be contrary to it, unless the compulsory element is introduced by order, the parties will have a complete right—the First Secretary made this quite plain last night—to ignore the test which that person or persons has had to apply. If the public interest is deemed to be contrary to one increase in pay or prices after another, what will follow? There will be a universal demand for compulsion. On the other hand, if the result of applying this test to the award of increased pay or prices is to find them in accord with the public interest, then the delay will have been no more than a waste of time.
It seems to me that even the voluntary element here is founded on completely specious arguments, and it is quite wrong for one of my hon. Friends to suggest that a Conservative Government might one day be glad to have that delaying process available to them to enable

further thought to be given to proposed changes in prices and incomes. To hold that view does not entail any suggestion that the Prices and Incomes Board is a waste of time; far from it. Whether the deed is done before its consideration is given seems to be entirely secondary; for an objective view to be brought to bear on changes of that kind, even after the event, can be of considerable value in helping to educate people to discipline themselves and to exercise a measure of restraint.
I think that where we go wrong is to suggest that there is a proper executive function for an impartial body of this kind bringing its judgment to bear and having the right to see that that judgment is enforced. We are told—and in the closing stages of the First Secretary's speech I heard the right hon. Gentleman refer to it again—that Part IV, the freeze, is only to last six months and that after that there is to be a period of six months of severe restraint. What guarantee have we that the period of the freeze will be confined to six months, with another six months of severe restraint to follow it?
We were told by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, that the trade unions, released from the freeze, may be expected to ask for more and yet more again. What is to happen at the end of this time when the compulsory freeze is removed? The longer that it remains, the greater the pressure behind the dam which will follow from the consequences of imposing it in the first place.
Why is it done? We are told that it is to demonstrate to the world the determination of the British people. Does it really require a law to indemnify people from breaking contracts to demonstrate the determination of the British people to get out of this crisis; that no one is to be allowed, however great his increase in productivity, to have a greater reward for his efforts? When these announcements were made some weeks ago, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite were the first to say that Britain cannot be expected to get out of her troubles if restrictions and restraints are put on every prospect of expansion, and they were quite right. Not only in the House but among many people outside there is confusion between


the deflation which the Government quite properly bring forward in an attempt to preserve the value of the £ and the freeze on wages. The freeze is a different kettle of fish entirely, but it is being advanced for allegedly similar motives. To my mind, they are completely different affairs.
I do not believe that those who have an influence over the value of the £ are impressed by the fact that contracts are to be broken and that those who have every right to expect the second half of a wage award are now to be denied it. I do not believe that they are impressed by this kind of determination of the British people. Moreover, it is only too likely that those who put justice first and, so far as they are able, refuse to accept the verdict of the Government will be highlighted, and every time that there is objection taken in some physical form to the imposition of this legislation, it will be described as a weakening of the will of the British people. It is one thing to cut down spending power by increases in hire-purchase terms, Purchase Tax or other matters of that kind. It is quite another thing to put the whole British economy in a straitjacket, in the process inevitably restricting investment in British industry. I regard this freeze as futile and highly dangerous.
I have already referred to the situation which inevitably will arise when the dam is deliberately removed. However, there is another risk which should not be lost sight of, and that is that there are many who seek to gain positions of power in the trade unions. Their prospects of getting adherents for their point of view will be greatly increased if the official leaders of the unions are denied the propect of an increase in wages for those whom they represent. It will be only too easy for Communist agitators to suggest that those who go along with a Government imposing a freeze are not the kind of people whom it is in their interests to appoint as their representatives, and that if they transfer their

allegiance to less responsible people they will get more money in their pockets as a consequence.
The freeze is alleged to apply not only to wages and salaries but to prices as well. It is very much easier to apply a freeze to prices of all kinds than it is to wages of all kinds. I do not want to give a catalogue of the ways in which the wage freeze could be circumvented, because that would only put ideas into people's heads. The fact remains that it does not require much imagination to realise that those whom it is thought deserve a reward unquestionably will get it in some form if it is thought sufficiently compelling. This law will not stop them. The same does not apply to prices. If we end up with a rigid block on dividends, prices, rents and I do not know what else, and a series of leaks in the wages front, it will merely mean that Government controlled inflation will become even more than we have had hitherto. It is an encouragement to cheat, and I hope that it will be resisted. Even in war time, the black market was evidence of the weakness of human nature, and I would not be surprised if that weakness of human nature came out again.
The right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins), in a much clearer speech upstairs last night than the one which he delivered in the House a little earlier, said that a wage freeze was thoroughly bad for labour relations. He had previously chided some of my hon. Friends for not understanding what goes on in factories and in the trade union movement. I take it, therefore, that we are entitled, on his assessment, to have regard to his interpretation of the consequences of this Bill. I am sure that it will be bad for labour relations, and that is another reason why I am sure that any form of freeze is not called for at this time and should be resisted at all costs.
We are told that the object is to give the Government time to think. We were told at both the last elections that all the thinking had been done——

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

6.0 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act 1966.
2. Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1966.
3. Ministry of Social Security Act 1966.
4. Overseas Aid Act 1966.
5. Malawi Republic Act 1966.
6. Botswana Independence Act 1966.
7. Lesotho Independence Act 1966.
8. Post Office (Subway) Act 1966.
9. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cambridge, Reading and Walsall) Act 1966.
10. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (West Kent Main Sewerage District) Act 1966.
11. Welsh Office Provisional Order Confirmation (Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board) Act 1966.
12. Kent Quarter Sessions Act 1966.
13. Bradford Cathedral and Churchyard Act 1966.
14. Loughborough University of Technology Act 1966.
15. University of Surrey Act 1966.
16. Royal Albert Hall Act 1966.
17. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Act 1966.
18. Scottish Union and National Insurance Company's Act 1966.
19. British Waterways Act 1966.
20. Huyton-with-Roby Urban District Council Act 1966.
21. Exeter Corporation Act 1966.
22. Barry Corporation Act 1966.
23. British Railways Act 1966.
24. Derby Churches (Saint Christopher's, Saint Peter's and Saint Paul's) Act 1966.

Orders of the Day — PRICES AND INCOMES BILL (COMMITTEE STAGE)

Question again proposed.

6.13 p.m.

Sir S. Summers: Sir S. Summers rose——

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order. I tried unsuccessfully to raise a point of order when Black Rod arrived. I wanted to know whether it would be possible in certain circumstances to delay going to the other place. I think that all of us would agree that the matter which we are debating is of great urgency. Is it possible when Black Rod arrives for you, Mr. Speaker, to state that we will go at another time and not immediately?

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Further to that point of order. It is difficult to raise these questions without appearing somewhat discourteous to you, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that this is not intended in any way. The time has now arrived—this is the opinion throughout the country and in this House—to get rid of some of these archaic procedures which ridicule the House in the light of our attempt as a Parliament to modernise industry and the economy. In this debate we are trying to persuade people to modernise throughout our country and our economy, yet we still have to put up with these procedures which delay the work of the House and often render impracticable some of the ideas of reform about which we are talking. Is there any possible way of determining the time at which this ceremony takes place?

Mr. Speaker: The simple answer to both hon. Gentlemen is that this is a matter not for Mr. Speaker, but for the House. I understand that this particular ceremony has been or is to be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. Mr. Speaker cannot change the procedure of the House of Commons. The House of Commons has full power to do what it likes in modernising its procedure. There are ways of doing it, but Mr. Speaker cannot do it.

Sir S. Summers: Sir S. Summers rose——

Mr. Winnick: Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue this, because he would be guilty of cutting further into the time of the debate which he wants to preserve.

Sir S. Summers: I will naturally not pursue the point or order, save only to say that I am surprised that this topic should be described as the modernising of British industry.
I was saying that there are various reasons why a wage and prices freeze is both futile and dangerous. I said that it had been advanced partly to impress those who influence the £ and that I did not consider that it had any effect in that respect, because it is mistaken.
Another reason which we are given for the Bill is that it will give the Government time to think. I have already referred to the very clear speech of the First Secretary of State upstairs last night, in which he made it plain——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order, to refer to a speech made in Standing Committee last night. The hon. Gentleman should turn from the merits of the Bill and link what he has said to the Motion, which is that it should be brought on to the Floor of the House.

Sir S. Summers: I was seeking to show that we object to the procedure adopted by the Government because of the vital change in the character of the Bill due to the introduction of Part IV, compared with the nature of the original early warning Bill. I am seeking to destroy one of the reasons advanced for the introduction of Part IV by the Government, namely, that it gives them time to think. We were told that all the thinking had been done before the last election, but it is plain that the Government have not discovered how they would run a managed economy.
We have all learned the hard way that it is the Government's belief that the country can operate a managed economy. I do not believe that that is possible outside a Communist State. It is clear that the attempt to do so is failing all along the line. We are constantly told that our competitors are ahead of us in many respects. They operate the capitalist system. We on this side believe in the capitalist system. It is because the Government do not believe in it that they bring forward a Bill of this kind. The sooner they give way to

a Government who do believe in it the better for the country and all concerned in it.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: It may be some measure of relief to hon. Members when I say that I have no intention of going into the details of the economic situation or into the history of the Prices and Incomes Bill. Nor do I intend to discuss in detail the provisions of the Bill. Instead, I will restrict my remarks to the Motion and the procedural matters which emerge from it.
I must, first, correct a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that the sitting of the Standing Committee last night represented the longest sitting of such a Committee for 20 years, implying, I suppose, that the Government were sadists and imposing lengthy sittings on hon. Members. I recall being the Chairman of a Standing Committee at a time when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power and sitting from 4 o'clock one afternoon until 8.35 the following morning. There were several other meetings of that Committee which went well into the night. I did not complain because I realised, as I do today, that the Government must get their business, which is precisely what the present Government are doing.
The Leader of the Opposition then said that he and his hon. Friends had no desire to discuss again the first three Parts of the Bill. I could not make out from that whether he meant that the Opposition did not intend to table Amendments on Report; in other words, that they had finally and completely accepted the first three Parts of the Bill. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) had been in his place, he would have told the right hon. Gentleman that when a Bill is sent to a Standing Committee, opportunity must be given for the Measure to have a Report stage. I trust that whoever winds up for the Opposition will make it clear what was meant by the right hon. Gentleman when he referred to the first three Parts of the Bill.
Let us consider the Motion in detail. It states:
That Standing Committee B be discharged from further consideration of the Prices and Incomes Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.


I cannot think of anything to which I would take greater exception. For years I have been trying to persuade hon. Members that the Floor of the House is not the place for the detail of legislation to be discussed by 630 hon. Members. The Leader of the Opposition stated that hon. Members should be able to discuss the principles of Bills on the Floor of the House. I agree. The Floor of the House is the place where the principles of legislation should be discussed, but not the details of legislation. I am beginning to wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition and some of his hon. Friends consider that those hon. Members who represent the Conservative Party in the Standing Committee are capable people. I looked in at the deliberations of the Committee last night and the Conservative hon. Members seemed to be doing as effective a job as any of their colleagues would do. A small Committee, such as that considering this Measure upstairs, is the ideal place to discuss the details of the Bill. Let us spend our time on the Floor of the House discussing the principles of legislation.

Mr. Trevor Park: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that in this case the Part IV which has been added to the Bill is not just an addition of detail but represents the introduction of entirely new principles?

Mr. Blackburn: Nevertheless, the Motion asks for the Standing Committee to be discharged and for the Committee stage of the Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House. It does not say that Part IV should be discussed in principle on the Floor of the House; just that the whole Committee stage should take place here. In any case, I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks that I would concentrate on the Motion, and that is what I am doing.
Many complaints have been made about the procedure of the House preventing Parliamentary time being used in the way hon. Members want it to be used. We have heard a great deal about Standing Order No. 9 and the fact that the procedure cannot be bent to meet the obvious desires of the House. In this case the procedure is being followed and I cannot see how it can be said that the Government are doing anything wrong in

making additions to a Bill which has already had its Second Reading.
I gather from the Press this morning that some of my hon. Friends feel that they will not be able to support the Government in the vote tonight. I cannot think of a worse occasion that they could choose to stage such a demostration. It is always a good idea when fighting to make sure that one is fighting on the best possible ground. I suggest that this issue does not represent the best possible ground on which to stage a demonstration.
The Liberals must make up their minds where they stand in this matter because they are continually stressing the need to reform the procedure of the House. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and his colleagues frequently say that we must bring our procedure up to date. However, apart from specialist committees, they have made no suggestions. If we are to streamline our procedure, we must get away from the idea that 630 hon. Members can all take part in debating the details of individual pieces of legislation. As I have said, these details should be discussed in small committees upstairs so that the time available on the Floor of the House may be used to discuss the principles involved in legislation.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Since the hon. Gentleman referred to the specialist committees which my hon. Friends and I have suggested, he will be aware that they are intended as bodies which will discuss the details of legislation and not the general principles involved. I understood that the Motion had been tabled because the Government had not afforded an opportunity for the principles of Part IV to be discussed on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Blackburn: I am not discussing that point but, since the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised it, it is worth considering Motion No. 183 on the Notice Paper standing in the names of the Leader of the Liberal Party and a number of his hon. Friends. That appears to be a criticism of the Leader of the House in that it states that the House
… deplores his refusal either to arrange for a second reading debate as to the principle of the drastic amendments now put down … to the Prices and Incomes Bill


and wholly unforeseen by the Prime Minister as recently as 20th July … 
The Leader of the Liberal Party could not have been listening to my right hon. Friend's statement on that date, since the Prime Minister said:
Within the main field of collective bargaining we shall rely in the first instance on voluntary action. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that the selfish do not benefit at the expense of those who co-operate, it is our intention to strengthen the provisions of the Prices and Incomes Bill … "—OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 636–7.]
Nobody need have been surprised when that strengthening was done. The Liberal Party's Motion also states:
… or to refer these amendments to a committee of the whole House so that on matters affecting every one of their constituents Members may exercise their normal democratic right of expressing their views and representing those of the people".
Really! If we are to have 630 hon. Members all expressing their views on, say, the new Clauses which have been added to the Prices and Incomes Bill, we had better begin thinking in terms of rising for the Summer Recess at about next Christmas.
When Committee stages are taken on the Floor of the House some hon. Members who wish to take part in them are often unable to do so. Only a fortnight or so ago there was a Motion of censure on the Chairman of Ways and Means because the Chair accepted the Closure after 7½ hours debate on the one matter, although there were still a number of hon. Members who wished to speak. Parliamentary business could not be run effectively on the terms of that Liberal Motion, particularly if it is thought that every hon. Member should be able to have a say on every matter that comes before Parliament.
Considering the terms of the Conservative Motion, hon. Gentlemen opposite must also make up their minds where they stand. They are making every heavy weather indeed of their opposition in this matter. The Leader of the Opposition should be told that merely to be angry for 40 minutes is not an effective way of dealing with an issue like this. I suggest that he pays a visit to Lord Butler and gets some advice.
The Opposition must make up their minds whether they want the present problem solved or want political advantage. They have not objected to things

that have been done by previous Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer; their opposition seems to be confined to this particular matter.
I believe that hon. Members very often underestimate the harm they can do by what they may say in this House. It may be very good politics to attack the Government, but there is a responsibility on Members of Parliament to see that in their attacks they have some regard to what is happening. Only this lunch-time I spoke to a man over here from Rhodesia. He said that Conservative Members did not realise what harm they had done in their speeches in this House on the subject of Rhodesia. What they now say can do harm, and make more difficult the solving of this problem.

The question is whether these new Clauses should or should not be added to the Bill we are discussing, but on Monday we dealt with a Bill in regard to which 17 new Clauses had been put down by the Opposition. If those new Clauses had been added, that Bill would have been an entirely different Measure from that which started out. I suppose that the only objections of hon. Members on this present occasion is that there is good possibility that the Government's new Clauses will be added. We have the same position with the Finance Bill. If we had accepted all the Amendments which were in order, and had added all the new Clauses put down by the Opposition, the Finance Bill would have been entirely different from the legislation as it first started out. There is therefore not much that can be argued on that score.

The Chairman of the Standing Committee last night ruled that these new Clauses are in order. Perhaps it is a pity that on this occasion the Committee did not have a Conservative Chairman, as he would have had to rule in exactly the same way. Of course, the new Clauses are in order, and are well within the terms of the Long Title of the Bill.

This Motion seeks to have certain parts of the Prices and Incomes Bill brought down to the Floor of the House and, as I have said. I can think of nothing to which I would object more. I wish that hon. Members could begin to look upon the various stages of a Bill in a different way from the present; deciding that in Committee a Bill has to be examined in detail. I often think that


in Committee we take the wrong attitude. We always take the attitude that the Government must prevail, but it might be far better if we had greater freedom in Committee, as matters could be put right on Report.

The object of hon. Members opposite is not so much to get this discussion taken on the Floor of the House but to stage a demonstration, when they could, by going outside the rules of order, go into detail on the new Clauses that have been put down. I hope that this Motion will be overwhelmingly rejected.

6.34 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I have always had a very high respect for the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn). I have been associated with him on many Committees, and have often listened to him with great interest. Nevertheless, I have been greatly disappointed this afternoon because, if I may say so with great respect, the hon. Gentleman seemed completely to have missed the point. I am therefore very glad to have the opportunity now to point out—briefly, I hope—what the real point is.
This Motion ought to be supported by every back bencher, because it seeks to deal with a most dangerous precedent. If a protest is not made, that precedent could be used for the most dangerous action in changing some of the foundations of our whole constitution——

Mr. Blackburn: I intervene because this is something that should be cleared up at once. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that what has been done by the Government is outside the rules of order?

Sir L. Heald: I am not talking about being outside the rules of order but about constitutional rights. That is an unwritten matter, but it is one with which the House of Commons can and ought to deal. I could not disagree with anyone more strongly than I do with the hon. Member when he says that we are dealing with a matter of detail. Let me explain why.
What Part IV does is to introduce a great enlargement in the arbitrary powers of the Executive. The hon. Member may not have read that Part, but the fact is that from beginning to end Part IV makes no reference to the Prices and

Incomes Board or to Schedule 2, on which that body's considerations rely. What it does is to enable the appropriate Minister to make judgment on proposed price changes or pay increases without any regard to Schedule 2 and without any regard to the Prices and Incomes Board. In other words, it gives an arbitrary power to the Minister, whereas previously under the Bill the Minister acted in a constitutional way on the report of the Board.
If that is not an important measure of principle, I do not know what is. That is the kind of thing we should be able to discuss in a Second Reading debate in the House, and that is the point with which neither the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde nor the First Secretary has come within miles of dealing. We should insist that it is dealt with.
Again, we find that the Minister has power, if these new Clauses are made law, to issue an order that price or pay increases that have already been made shall be withdrawn and reversed. If that is not an arbitrary power for a Minister to exercise, what is? But the hon. Member says, "Oh, no, we do not want that sort of thing discussed here." Then, if you please, Mr. Speaker, he adds, "In any case, very few hon. Members can speak on Second Reading, so it does not matter whether we have a Second Reading or not." That is an outrageous thing to say. I say without hesitation that I regard this as one of the most important matters on which I have had an opportunity of speaking since first coming to this House, and I believe that there are many hon. Members who think the same. The point is not that every hon. Member should be able to speak in a Second Reading debate, but that he should have the chance of speaking, and we are complaining that we were deprived of that chance.
It is an alarming situation, because although I have noticed, and I am sure that it is so, that quite a number of hon. Members opposite are not happy about this present matter, they will unfortunately have the steam-roller put over them. I thought that that explained the speech of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde—that it was really a little stimulus to loyalty. It was a rather curious coincidence that he referred to


us in that connection; I wondered whether it might not be an unconscious line of thought. I should have thought that there was a good deal more support for the Motion. He said also that the Motion was a request to consider all the Clauses. He must have realised, because from his experience he knows far more about the procedure of the House than I, that this Motion is the only means by which we can seek to get the Bill back again, and we must use what machinery we have. If the Measure is brought back to the House, as has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the purpose will be to get a proper discussion of the kind of thing I have mentioned this afternoon. It is idle to say that we are going to waste a whole lot of time. The hon. Member even went so far as to say that we should deliberately get out of order by discussing details and then have a row about it. That does not seem a very worthy thing to suggest.
The position is more likely to be, and the First Secretary appeared to think, that he might be able to say that this was a Second Reading debate and therefore we had had it—we "had had it" in both senses—but, of course, this is not a Second Reading debate. My right hon. Friend was quite clear that he must keep in order, and so must I. We may refer to the Bill, but we cannot discuss its merits.
I assume that the Government would have been able to put forward a good case on Second Reading of Part IV and to have felt satisfied that everyone had heard it. Instead, that Part is brought in upstairs. I wonder how many hon. Members who are not on the Committee really understood what I have been talking about before they heard the First Secretary's speech.
It is by speeches in Second Reading debates that the public are made aware of these matters. It so happens that in these cases there are not full, detailed or always entirely edifying extracts published about Committee proceedings upstairs in the early hours of the morning. There is no continuous comment and very often people know very little of what is going on in Committee. We have the opportunity this evening of pointing out

to the Government what apparently they do not know.
Even one of their most respected supporters, with the greatest knowledge of procedure, apparently did not appreciate that this, as far as I know, was the first use of a piece of machinery which could be used—there is a big enough majority—to bring in by the back door a great many undesirable things. Once it has got in, to get it out again when the Bill comes back to the House is almost impossible.
We had an interesting account by the First Secretary of all the high and worthy motives which the Government have. I do not dissociate him from the highest motives, but, if we are to look for tactics, we might look elsewhere.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) that this is an important matter. Since I wish to say some things which are critical of the Government, I wish to express myself with my usual care. Therefore, I start by saying—I say it very sincerely—that I think anyone who listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs today, whatever one might think of the merits of the issue in this debate, will agree that it was a most powerful and effective speech. I was very glad to hear him make it. The other night he made a bad speech. If all of us who make bad speeches were cleared out of this place it would be empty. So when I say that I disagree with the Government in this matter, I acknowledge that in the speech of my right hon. Friend he certainly made a case which has to be answered by those of us who disagree with him.
He also dealt effectively with part of the argument put by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition grossly overstated his case when he talked of this debate being the great divide between those who believe in liberty and those who want a totalitarian society. That was the language we heard in this House in the years between 1945 and 1951 and the kind of peroration we expected elsewhere from Lord Woolton. When Tories lisp the word


"liberty" they always get into trouble, because we are always very doubtful whether they believe in it. I was not much impressed by that part of the right hon. Member's speech.
My right hon. Friend dealt with that, but there are still many matters which the House of Commons has to decide—very important questions. The question whether it was proper for Part IV to be included in the Bill has been disposed of by the Chairman of the Committee. The question of Parliamentary legality has been dealt with. No one questions that. But it is still right for us to debate the questions whether it was wise, whether it was politically expedient, whether it was in accordance with the treatment of genuine rights of free debate in this House for all hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) tended to suggest—I do not say that he did it in these words—that the argument had been settled by the Chairman upstairs. We cannot accept that. The questions whether it is wise, whether it is expedient, or whether it is right in the treatment and protection of full debate, are questions for the House to decide, not for the Chairman or even for Mr. Speaker himself.
I was rather surprised to hear the First Secretary say that it was absurd to suggest that this matter could be dealt with in some other way. Whether it was right or wrong, feasible or not, it was certainly practicable and possible for the Government to have introduced a separate Bill to deal with this question. No one can dispute that. We could have had a separate Bill incorporating the provisions of the Prices and Incomes Standstill White Paper. If that procedure had been followed it might have meant that we would have had to sit here longer during August for the purpose of having the discussion.
What we are complaining about is that we did not have sufficient time. We may have had to sit longer in August. That may have been inconvenient, but we cannot complain on that score. The measures being introduced will be extremely inconvenient for many people in the country.
I did not agree with the whole of the award for the doctors, but certain numbers of doctors are being treated in the

most shameful manner. Doctors in some of the hospitals are getting pay which most people would regard as scandalous. They were promised that they would get something and a date was provided. The promise has been broken. It has been broken by this White Paper and Part IV of the Bill. That is a matter of great inconvenience to the doctors. Railway-men had a promise made to them and that promise has been broken also. This White Paper and Part IV are extremely inconvenient for them. There are many other groups whose claims could be cited. Therefore, none of us would have had any right to complain if the Government had said we shall have to sit for another week in order to get a separate Bill through.
Then there is the question of whether it would not have been advantageous for the Government themselves to have introduced a separate Bill. The First Secretary, I am sure, is passionately eager to see a prices and incomes policy working in this country. No one doubts his sincerity. Whether he can achieve it or not is another matter, but no one doubts his wish to see a proper prices and incomes policy working and no one doubts that he means one in which there is a planned growth of wages.
If that is what the First Secretary wants in the Prices and Incomes Bill now before the Committee, how foolish it was to spatchcock into the Bill a measure which has precisely different ideas. I should have thought the First Secretary himself would have said to the Cabinet—maybe he did—" For heaven's sake don't mix up your standstill with my Prices and Incomes Bill. Let us keep the two as separate as possible. One is designed to have a planned growth of wages over a period with productivity agreements incorporated in it, and the other is designed to give the exact opposite. So for heaven's sake don't attach to my Prices and Incomes Bill the odium of a standstill order." Therefore, in the Government's own interest, it would have been much better to have kept the two matters separate and to have introduced a second Bill.
However, I am not concerned only with looking after the Government's interests. I am also concerned with my own interests. I have every right to be. My own interest is as a Member of the House


of Commons. The prices and incomes standstill and the new Part IV are certainly unjust, probably unworkable, and are likely to inflict lasting and grievous injury on the process of collective bargaining and the trade union movement.
Holding these views about the White Paper, I have every right to express them in the House; and so have my hon. Friends who hold these views. We are deprived of the right to express those views on the issue of principle by the procedure which the Government adopted. Not only is that unfair to hon. Members on the back benches on this side, as indeed to hon. Members opposite; but, again, it is most unwise in the interests of the Government.
Nothing could do greater injury to the Government in seeking to get their policy accepted on the wages freeze throughout the country than for it to be thought that the Measure is being pushed through by a kind of conspiracy and that the House of Commons has not had the chance to debate it. It is for the Government's benefit that it should be known throughout the country that their Measure has been subjected to minute criticism by those who happen to sympathise with the critics in the country.
Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) is fighting his battle in Standing Committee in the interests of democracy. He is stating his own views, but he is also, in an ironic sense, acting in the interests of the Government, because he is at least doing his best to use such procedure as is available to show the country that a debate is taking place in the House of Commons upon these serious matters.
The Government should have provided, not merely that one or two members of the Standing Committee who happen to share our view are able to express it, but also that all of us, if we caught the eye of the Chair, are able to state our views in a proper debate on Second Reading. There is nothing in our Parliamentary practice—no obstacle of time—which made this impossible. It was a grievous error of judgment on the part of the Government to say that they would try to push through the Measure in this manner.
There are even more serious aspects than that. My right hon. Friend the

Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) referred—rightly, in my opinion—to the wider economic and democratic aspects. We are not entitled to debate these matters fully on their merits in this discussion. This debate is not a substitute for a Second Reading debate. Nobody is entitled to say that it is. However, it is possible for us to say that we should have been able to debate this matter in a wider economic context. Of course we should. In certain circumstances I might even agree to a wages and prices standstill. I should object to it very strongly; I should dislike it very much; but, if the Government were taking a whole series of other measures of which I approved, I would find it very difficult to pick out this measure and say that I would not support it.
However, the Government are taking very few of the measures to deal with the economic crisis which many of us think should be taken. They are not taking the vital measures we think are required to deal with the enormous defence expenditure. They are not taking the measures we think are required to deal with the international financial situation. They are not taking the measures we think are required to get the instruments of control and planning on the scale we think is necessary. These are the criticisms we wish to make. I cannot elaborate them now. They are exactly the kind of criticisms which can be made only in a Second Reading debate. That is what a Second Reading debate is for—so that we can discuss the particular Measure in the context of the general situation. That is what I and others are being denied by the Government's action.
Therefore, I have to consider what attitude I will take to the Opposition's Motion. I never like voting with the Tories, if it can possibly be avoided. On this occasion my hon. Friends may be relieved to know that it can be avoided. Moreover, the remedy that the Opposition propose does not deal with the disease, because I have been complaining that we have not been able to have a Second Reading debate on this issue. I think that a separate Measure should have been introduced. This is what the Opposition should have proposed. Whether I would have supported it if the Opposition had proposed it they will have


to find out by tabling such a Motion. If I were in charge of the Opposition and having to deal with the Government in these circumstances, the Government would not have got off as lightly as they have in the last few weeks. The Government deserve to have got it much harder.
I shall not vote for the Opposition's Motion. I shall not vote for the Government, either. Of course I understand the consequences. I do not abstain from voting on Motions without making the reckoning. If anybody abstains from voting on a Motion, he must abstain on the basis that he is inviting others to take the same course as himself. That is the only honourable basis on which a Member can vote in the House.
If everyone followed the course I am advising my hon. Friends to take, I understand that the Government would be defeated. This would be a severe setback for the Government, but I think that it would be a victory for the House of Commons. It would make for better government in the future. If the Government were defeated, we should have to have further debates on this issue. If the Government have got a very good case, a better case than we have heard so far on the White Paper and the new Part IV, we would hear it in the House of Commons and the country would hear it; so the Government's measures would not be injured if their measures were good.
In this economic crisis some of us go further than fearing that the Government are taking the wrong courses to deal with it. We are critical of the Government, not only because we think their Measures are lopsided. This Measure for dealing with wages, in particular, we believe puts a quite wrong emphasis. There are many other important measures which should be taken to rescue the economy, if we are going to do that.
This is not our only criticism. My fear is about what is to happen in the next crisis. Some of the courses that the Government are following mean that there may be another early crisis of sterling. What will happen then? If that crisis comes before the end of the six months or just after, will the Government then say, "We do not propose to continue these powers"? Of course not.

They will try to continue them. How will they do so? They will be able to say, "The House of Commons agreed that we should not have a Second Reading on these powers originally and we are merely following that precedent". I do not propose that the Government should have my approval for the precedent they are apparently setting.
The Government should consider these matters very carefully. Governments never like admitting that they have made mistakes. It is very awkward for them to do so. However, the Government have introduced a Measure which extends throughout the whole economic life of the country. It offends in some degrees against principles that some of us on this side of the House hold very dear indeed, and which I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench hold very dear.
I refer to the principles of collective bargaining, which are being utterly ruptured, and to the abandonment of promises made to great sections of the community. A prominent example is the railwaymen, who had to fight long for not very big rises and who, after a long fight lasting many months and even years, got an increase following a meeting in Downing Street. It was signed, sealed and delivered. Now it is to be snatched from them. These are very serious matters. Such matters cannot be dealt with by saying that we shall not have the fullest possible debates in the House.
Therefore, I should like the Government not, perhaps to withdraw their opposition to the Motion, but to introduce a Motion of their own which would remedy the matter. I am not hopeful that they will do so, but I urge them to do it. If they do not, I urge as many of my hon. Friends who agree with me to abstain from voting in the Lobbies tonight. That would be the most effective way of making clear to the Government that we are earnest in what we are saying in these matters.
But if the Government will not take that remedy, a small crumb that they can give us is to say that the fullest possible debate will be permitted next week on the Report stage. I do not agree with the arrangement proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, who apparently suggested that he did not worry very much about debating Parts I, II and III but


wanted only to concentrate on Part IV. He has no right to decide these matters. Many of us want to discuss Parts I, II and III, because that is the permanent legislation. Therefore, we think that there should be an extensive Report stage on those parts and on Part IV as well.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): The hon. Gentleman, no doubt inadvertently, has misrepresented what my right hon. Friend said. He did not say that we did not want an extensive Report stage on the first three Parts of the Bill. He said that we did not mind the first three Parts having been dealt with upstairs and that the Part we wanted to get in Committee on the Floor of the House was Part IV, which would, incidentally, give the hon. Gentleman the Second Reading he asked for.

Mr. Foot: If I have misrepresented what the Leader of the Opposition said, I am very sorry, but I do not think that I did. I think that I heard it correctly, but HANSARD will prove who was correct.
But that does not alter my main point. I am now urging the Government to make only a small concession, which is nothing like what the Opposition are demanding. My main insistence is that Part IV should have been introduced as a separate Bill. There was nothing to stop the Government doing that. It would have been beneficial for the country and the House of Commons and the health of our Parliamentary institution if the Government had done so.
I hope that they will consider these matters very carefully in the future and will understand that there are many Members on this side of the House who are determined to protect in the fullest degree the rights of hon. Members to state their views and the views of their constituents on matters of such paramount importance.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Many of us who spoke in the recent debate on prices and incomes are not all that surprised to find ourselves back here again today to discuss an additional part to the Bill. We may be forgiven by the Government if we raise an odd eyebrow now that the warnings that we issued then have come true so quickly.
It is astonishing that, having argued one Bill two weeks ago, we are denied the opportunity to argue a quite different Bill which is now put before us—or rather which is not to be put before us, this being the substance of our complaint.
In the course of the past two weeks, the Government have moved from Ministerial exhortation to Ministerial compulsion. I have here the copy of HANSARD in which the First Secretary made it "crystal clear"—hon. Members may remember the words—that there was nothing in the Bill which placed a ban on any parties concerned
going on to do whatever they think they ought to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 1756.]
We are not accustomed to tropical twilights in this country, but in political terms the concept of free negotiation has slipped into the dark with unprecedented suddenness.
The greatest danger which many hon. Members on this side of the House see today lies in considering the Prices and Incomes Bill out of the context of Government policy as a whole, because it is only a part of a wider pattern which has already dangerously increased the intervention of the Government into the State on an unprecedented scale over the past eighteen months. Every increase in intervention brings its own problems, which inevitably lead to further controls of one sort or another.
Do any hon Members opposite any longer believe, for example, that when the import surcharge is removed in November we shall not see some other form of control in its place, and does anyone now believe that the repayments due under the Selective Employment Tax will be made on time? Exactly the same doubts exist in relation to Part IV which is to be added to the Bill. It is a useful weapon in a Socialist armoury. The implication that we shall not see it repeated at the end of six months or a year does not stand up to examination. If the new Part works there will be such a backlog of claims outstanding that by the time the Bill comes up for consideration no Government would dare remove the controls which they have imposed. It it does not work, the logic if this Government's thinking would be to extend the controls already provided in the Bill.
As I understand it, the only alternative which the policies of the Government leave open to them is that there will be such a level of unemployment that the normal forces of the market will have cured, at a great social and economic cost to the people and to the industry of the country, the need for the Bill. That is the only likelihood in which we shall see it not repeated in twelve months' time.
The pattern of the Bill is coming into effect against a grossly overheated economy, overheated in no small measure by the efforts of the First Secretary to persuade manufacturers to hold down prices at a time when costs have been increasing at one of the fastest rates ever. On the one hand, we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer trying to deflate; on the other, the First Secretary creating a situation where the Chancellor's intentions are being frustrated.
The great weakness of the Government's policy is that they are trying to go in two directions at the same time, and the journey is punctuated by periodic exhortations from the Prime Minister that we should all do our best to get the country out of its economic difficulties. It seems wrong, when we are greatly expanding the weapons available to the Government, that we should not have the opportunity on the Floor of the House to discuss the latest step and the latest weapon that they seek to use.
The Prime Minister has on many occasions put great effort into his attempts to persuade us to co-operate. No hon. Member when faced with the prospect of a drowning man would refuse to help in the rescue of the same man on one, two or even three occasions. But when one finds the same man in the same pond for the same reasons six times in eighteen months, it is not unneighbourly to ask how it is that he came to be there in the first place.
That is the present situation. This vicious legislation is necessary to make up for the Government's mismanagement of the domestic economy over the past eighteen months. During the Second Reading of the Prices and Incomes Bill, I outlined to the House the pressures I saw on professionally and technically qualified staff and the employers of those people from the standpoint of a company, of which I am a director, concerned with the personnel recruitment.
Part IV introduces new principles which must affect anyone involved, and it is quite wrong not to discuss those principles on the Floor of the House. The salary section of our national wages and salary bill is approximately 40 per cent. of the total, and the levels here are forced up by and take their lead from a relatively small number of people. These are the ones changing jobs. Personnel managers are well aware of the sums which they have to pay to attract men and women with the right qualifications, and at half-yearly or yearly intervals they then review the existing salary scales for their present staff, having regard to what they are having to pay to attract people joining the company during that period.
They are helped in this review by specialist surveys which are widely distributed throughout industry to bring to their attention the new levels of salary and wage prevalent for various groups according to qualification and age. It is the figures of salary commanded by job changers which leads to increases in salaries in industry at large.
The great danger of the Bill is that one of its principal effects must be to encourage people to move from one job to another. That is the way they will obtain increases. They will move. It will be totally impossible to quantify promotion in these circumstances, and any company employing over 100 people will, in my view, be powerless to resist the attractions of companies down the road which are prepared to buy their qualified staff at higher salaries.
In judging whether the principles of Part IV should be discussed on the Floor of the House, it is valuable to know to what extent there is pressure within the salary market. It may interest the House to have an idea of the sort of salaries which younger qualified people now feel able to ask for in changing jobs. A survey we recently carried out, published this week in the Sunday Times, showed that 60 per cent. of those between 20 and 25 years of age wanted more than a 10 per cent. increase in salary and 17 per cent. of them wanted a 25 per cent. increase to take them from the approximate level of £1,000 a year to about £1,250.
Pressure of this kind from job changes, which is not in any way affected by the new Part IV of the Bill, will not be


removed. So long as it continues, any company is pressed in the most unfortunate way, with the result that, if the Government want to make their policy effective, they must protect the exposed flank of any company which will be at the mercy of people trying to take its staff away. Further, they must consider ways—this is another matter of principle to be considered—by which they can protect companies, which having recruited people at the new increased levels of salary which they are having to pay all the time, find that they cannot then bring their own staff salaries up into line with the new levels. This will create a good deal of difficulty within their own organisation which can only lead to disgruntlement amongst their salaried staff.
I have said, "If the Government want to make the policy work", and I use those words advisedly. I do not believe that this policy will work. Further, if it could be made to work, the distortions to which it would lead would be wholly undesirable.
There is a moment at which every policy is doomed to discredit. It is difficult to be sure which of the four, five or six moments of crisis for this prices and incomes policy one could single out and say that the policy had no chance from that point of being effective. But if I had to choose that moment, I would choose the moment at which the First Secretary of State was allowed to go back into the Cabinet after his "Will you—won't you—resign" period of tension a week or so ago.
I say that for two reasons. First, because within months we shall see levels of unemployment in this country which will make it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman ever again to justify the policy which he advocates in the House or to say that he believed in it against the wishes of the rest of his Cabinet colleagues. Second, and more important, the First Secretary of State's continued presence in the Cabinet will be seen in retrospect as the first sign of weakness on the journey to the next economic crisis. Above all the arguments for the freeze will be heard the neighing of a Trojan horse.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The speech of the hon. Member for Tavi-

stock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) was very interesting and contained points of great importance to everyone in the country into which one would like to go further on another occasion. Several of the points he made are in order in this debate, but if one were to discuss in detail some of his other observations one would soon go out of order. I confine myself, therefore, to saying that the concern which he expressed about the long-term prospects for our economy is a concern which I deeply share.
Precisely because the context of this debate is the deflationary measures which the Government have announced, there is urgent need for a proper Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House so that those measures and the powers they propose to take under the new Part IV—the standstill measures, as they are called—may be fully discussed against the background which the hon. Gentleman painted in one way and which other hon. Members might paint in a somewhat different way. But I am at one with him in saying that there is urgent need for that discussion to take place.
I see on the Front Bench my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, representing the Cabinet, and we assume that he will try to catch the eye of the Chair in order to reply to the debate. I do not believe that the Government's decisions on procedure which I am about to criticise are ordinary business decisions taken in the ordinary way by my right hon. Friend on his own responsibility. I believe that they are highly political decisions and that other very senior members of the Cabinet have had a decisive influence on them. I wish it to be quite clear, therefore, that I am not in any way joining the Leader of the Opposition in what I consider to be unwarranted personal attacks on my right hon. Friend. This is not a personal matter.
The main case made by the Government so far, which has to be answered by those of us who dissent from their views in this matter, was made this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State. I join other hon. Members in paying a tribute to him and I express my appreciation of the fact that he was in such good form this afternoon and made such an effective


case from his point of view. It will, I hope, dispose for good and all of those irresponsible and unfair headlines which have appeared in some newspapers recently because he happened to be tired out and made a bad speech a week or so ago.
Part of the case put by my right hon. Friend for the procedure adopted by the Government has already been dealt with by other hon. Members, and I shall concentrate on the points which have not yet been dealt with.
My right hon. Friend said—I hope I quote him fairly—that the penalty Clauses of Part IV are the same as in Part II of the Bill and are, therefore, nothing new. I completely dissent from that view because, although the penalties are the same, the offences are different, and this changes the whole aspect of the Bill. It has been common ground among all the lawyers on both sides of the House, and it is part of our established tradition of justice in this country in which we take pride, that the most important legislative departure which the House of Commons can make is precisely the creation of new offences. There can be nothing more serious than the creation of new offences. The greatest care has always been taken when new offences have been approved by the House. New offences against the criminal law have always been examined most carefully, and ample time has been given for consideration of the new principle introduced and the details. It has always been held that the House should not permit the creation of new offences in any other circumstances. That is one of Parliament's oldest traditions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) dealt with an important aspect in the Standing Committee. The reports have now been published in the newspapers. I do not want to go into detail, but I think that I shall be in order in referring, as others have done, to the important principle that my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton has in the House and outside put to Members of Parliament and to the trade union movement. The point of principle is that if Part IV were in the end to be passed by the House, in certain circumstances the ordinary trade union activity of bringing pressure upon em-

ployers would be an offence. That would introduce a substantial change. So it does not matter whether the penalties would be the same as in Part II. It is the application of the penalties to new offences which entirely changes the character of the Bill.
There is a close connection between democracy in the House of Commons and democracy outside. There has been discussion in recent years about the importance of Parliament as the central political forum of the nation. Many people from the academic sphere and many political journalists have said that the House of Commons is beginning to slide away from that central position in the scheme of British politics.
Here we have an attempt by the Government to introduce procedure that will do more to continue Parliament's slide than other measures that have recently been criticised. Why is this? Over the last 12 months various phases of the Government's policy have been considered by the trade union movement and the Labour movement in general. The Government have discussed certain policies with their supporters in the trade union and Labour movements. On those occasions it was carefully emphasised by Government spokesmen, starting with the Prime Minister, that the prices and incomes policy, whatever else it included, did not include a wage freeze or the taking of statutory powers to enable the Government to enforce one, no matter for what period. Those assurances were freely given.
I notice on the Government Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. He was my neighbour at the last T.U.C. Conference. I sat next to him in the gallery. I will not disclose what he whispered in my ear and what I whispered back, but I think it fair to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite must contain themselves. There must be a limit; privacy must be preserved. However, I think that I am safe in saying that those assurances were seriously given by representatives of the Government. The decision of that conference on voluntary wage restraint had a great deal to do with the assurances given by the Government. This is the connection between democracy in the House and democracy outside.
If on those occasions Government spokesmen had told the Trade Union Congress "We intend at some future date, in addition to the policies that we have announced, to take statutory powers to enforce a wage freeze", the whole Congress would have voted against it and there would have been a completely different picture emerging from the trade union movement, and that picture would have been noticed by the Government.
I am trying to establish a link between what goes on in this House and the procedure that we adopt to add to the law and what people outside know and feel about it. Here we have a case where the Government, by wrongly maintaining that these are mere Amendments and that they do not contain a vital change of principle, are acting contrary to the impression that they honestly gave to the trade union movement during the last 12 months.
Therefore, I invite the Government, even at this late hour, to change their minds. It is never humiliating to come to the House of Commons and agree that a mistake has been made on procedure. It is never wrong to listen to the House of Commons. It is never wrong to accept the connection between democracy in the House and its reflection in the trade union and Labour movement. Indeed, there are involved here a number of procedures that could be adapted in the way in which I suggest. No matter what arrangements people might have made for 12th August, 11th August, or even 15th August, they cannot count for very much against the background of the new departures from our established law that the Government are proposing. If we have to sit on to the end of August to have a Second Reading debate and proper Committee procedures to go into the principle of the matter before we discuss the details, then the House of Commons must accept that we stay here. I am sure that hon. Members would accept that if the Government proposed it.
I turn to another aspect of the new legislation. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary said that it was the urgency of the situation that weighed with him in adopting this procedure. I want to examine this a little. The First Secretary ought to have dealt with, but did not, the way in which the various

changes of attitude on the part of the Government have come about so rapidly in the last ten days. At one stage not long ago there was no indication of the completeness of the standstill that was to be introduced, nor that it would be so hurriedly passed through the House It has been suggested by very responsible American newspapers that some of the increased haste introduced by the Government into these procedures arose from the attitudes of some people outside who have an interest in our economic affairs—a not completely selfless interest. That is why I began by saying that I am not in any way holding the Leader of the House personally responsible for this hurried procedure.
At one time not many days ago the Cabinet decided that it did not need immediate statutory powers and that it would make an appeal for a standstill by voluntary action. That was the policy, and it held sway for about four days. It is suggested in the American Press that Mr. Fowler, the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States Administration, then passed through London and had dinner and a long discussion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, no one has said that Mr. Fowler makes our policy. I am not saying it. The American Press does not say so. No one has said that he redrafted the Bill. But what the American Press has said—and what might be significant—is that it was assumed, after he had met senior members of the Government, that it would be regarded as even more convincing by the United States Government if these measures were made compulsory under Statute. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to go into this later on, because we are already agreed that this procedural debate is being held against the background of very serious economic circumstances.
I turn to an equally important point. There are on these benches a number of hon. Members who firmly oppose the Government's policy in this matter. I have never been among those who suggest that I and those associated with me in this attitude are better Socialists or care more for democracy or believe more in the policies we put before the electorate than the Government. I assume that all of us on this side of the House are equally concerned and equally


committed. But I must say that on no occasion at election meetings did I fail to get a question on the prices and incomes policy. Many of these questions dealt precisely with future consequences.
Constituents who were active trade unionists asked me, "If we approve this policy and return you to Parliament, will it be limited to what is being said in the party's manifesto?" It will be noted that there was not a whisper in the manifesto about taking statutory power to enforce a wage freeze. I accept the constitutional doctrine that a Government cannot put all sorts of policies for all sorts of unforeseen circumstances into an election manifesto, but in this case we are not dealing with a detailed departure but with a fundamental principle. If, at the selection conference at which I was first selected for Parliament as a Labour candidate—four Parliaments ago—I had said that I should be in favour of a statutory wage freeze, I should never have been selected. This is one of the fundamental principles that our movement has believed in. What we are dealing with here is a departure from 60 years of our history in industrial relations.
If it is that kind of departure then it is quite wrong that any Minister should argue that, because the Chairman of a Standing Committee has ruled that the Amendments are included in the Long Title, that is a valid reason for denying the House of Commons a Second Reading debate. This matter cannot be decided by reference to Standing Orders and Long Titles.
To accept such a principle would be dangerous because the Government, with the advice of constitutional lawyers, could always invent such a long and infinite title to a Bill that everything could be included. The House of Commons has never accepted that kind of procedure and we should not accept it now. The argument that the Government have to meet in connection with these decisions is, "Is it right? Is it in the spirit of our political system and in the spirit in which people outside understand Parliamentary democracy?"
It is wrong that such a fundamental departure from our law of industrial relations—creating new offences for things which trade unionists have always re-

garded as ordinary industrial activities—should be rushed through the House of Commons in this way. It is on this ground that I cannot support the Government. I still hope that they will change their mind, but if they do not I must call upon those of my hon. Friends who support my point of view on this issue to stay out of the Lobby tonight.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I support the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) in his view. I find myself in almost complete agreement with some aspects of his speech, although no doubt for different reasons. I was pleased to hear him say that this is a matter of constitutional importance. As such, it should not be decided, as he said, on Standing Orders or on the long titles of Bills, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), whose speech was in marked contrast with those of the hon. Member for Penistone and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
The essential liberty of the country is safeguarded largely by constitutional convention and by the stand that back benchers make in this House. The matter we are debating is of great constitutional importance. The Prime Minister is reputed to have said when he went to the United States—no doubt with the intention of impressing the Americans—that this country was introducing and had introduced measures unprecedented in time of peace or war in a democracy.
One then asks where we find these unprecedented measures. One finds them in the Amendments in Part IV of this Bill. Did the House of Commons discuss them? When did the Second Reading take place? The answer is that such a debate never has taken place. There has never been the opportunity to discuss the vital matters of principle with which these measures are concerned.
The Amendments proposed as Part IV of the Bill are vastly more important than the Bill itself. They introduce an entirely new matter of principle which was not even considered on Second Reading. They make a farce of the Second Reading. That was concerned with a totally different Bill. Everyone should agree that, if these measures are as


important as the Prime Minister has judged them to be, it was surely not right that they should first be considered by a Committee of 25 Members on which my party is not represented at all.
The Leader of the Opposition today made the most effective speech I have heard him make as Leader of the Opposition. He had many matters to be effective about. He had all the necessary ammunition provided by the Prime Minister himself both as Prime Minister and in Opposition. But the right hon. Gentleman said that the Liberal Party voted against the Bill being considered on the Floor of the House. He should take a little more care of facts. If he refers to HANSARD he will find that his statement is untrue and I ask him to withdraw it.
The whole point of a Second Reading debate in the House is that matters of principle should be adequately considered and no such opportunity has been given on this Bill as amended, although the principles are of crucial importance to the country. The Government are introducing measures through Part IV which many hon. Members on both sides find utterly reprehensible. It is not unprecedented for Bills which have been committed to a Standing Committee to be recalled to the Floor of the House. We did this with the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965. There are other examples to be found further back in Erskine May. This course should be followed with this Bill.
There is something radically wrong with the procedures of the House of Commons when the Chairman of a Standing Committee can rule as the Chairman of Standing Committee B did last night. Presumably the new Clauses proposed by the Government were drafted by Parliamentary draftsmen after the Ministers responsible told them what was wanted. Presumably, they were then considered by the Law Officers or at least the Law Officers may have been consulted. Presumably, thereafter they were submitted to the Clerk of the House for his opinion.
At that stage, no one on the Opposition Benches and no back bencher on the Government side of the House had even had time to consider them. I do not know whether the Chairman of the Committee himself then took advice on the

matter before the Committee sat, but the Parliamentary Secretary seems to be nodding his head in assent. So these matters were considered by authority without any back bencher on either side of the House having had an opportunity to consider them. Our procedure in this respect seems to need to be cleared up a good deal. We ought not to be faced with these faites accomplis.
I want now to turn to matters mentioned by the First Secretary this afternoon. Let me first echo the sentiment expressed by hon. Members opposite and say across the Floor of the House that it was a very good speech. I disagreed with a good deal of it, but it was a good fighting justification of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude. I thought that his speech the other evening was disastrous, and it always gives the House pleasure to hear a good Parliamentarian retrieve his character as a Parliamentary speaker.
What the right hon. Gentleman did not do was to give any kind of justification for refusing to allow the House to debate the principles of the Bill. Most of his speech was spent trying to justify those principles. I understood his main argument to be that the situation had become so serious, that urgent, unprecedented measures were now needed. He virtually said that while under a voluntary system decent responsible chaps would try to co-operate, the fellows who were not prepared to cooperate would get away with murder and had to be prevented from doing so. I understood that to be the psychological reason for the introduction of the measures in Part IV and why they are so urgent.
But why should not the Amendment have been introduced in the form of a new Bill, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale suggested? There is no reason why a fresh Bill should not have been introduced, when the matter could have been properly debated on Second Reading. That would have been the right way to do it. The Liberal Party is completely opposed to the principles upon which the White Paper and the consequent Amendments are based. We feel that in resorting to these highly illiberal principles, the Government are acknowledging the bankruptcy of their prices policy.
Of course I accept, and anyone who knows him would accept, that if it is correct that the First Secretary is becoming an economic dictator, then he is a reluctant economic dictator. I accept that he genuinely intends these powers to be of a strictly temporary nature. But will they be? His feet, in the words of the Prime Minister, are on the slippery slope. We are not concerned with his motives, but with the effect of his legislation. One can have the best possible motives for introducing legislation and taking certain powers, but the person with those motives may not be the person in charge when the powers are later exercised. Who knows what changes there will be in the country's conditions, or whether the economic situation will get worse? There might even be another Government in power. Once these powers have been taken—even though as drafted the Amendments automatically come to an end twelve months after the first effective date—once one is embarked on this course, it will be very difficult to change to another direction.
This could be one of the most important debates in the House since the end of the war. It is a matter of great concern to hon. Members opposite, as it is to hon. Members on this side of the House. I can understand that hon. Members with deeply-held Socialist principles, which I do not have, are as concerned about this matter as I am, who believe in a far more liberal economy.
Paragraph 2 of the White Paper says that the country needs a breathing space of twelve months in which productivity can catch up with the excessive increases in incomes which have been taking place. Yet not in the White Paper, nor in the Bill, nor in any of the Amendments to it is there any sign of a policy designed to increase productivity. What makes the Government think that productivity will catch up with incomes, even though those incomes are frozen during the next twelve months? Will not the effect of the freeze rather be to stultify productivity?
What will the Government's attitude be if, at the end of twelve months, or at the end of six months, it is found that productivity has not increased and that the disparity between productivity and the rise in incomes, even though they

have been frozen, is exactly the same? What measures do the Government then propose to take? What will happen to the poor employer who has managed to survive because of a low wage structure in his particular industry—and who has only been enabled to survive because of the lack of competition to make him brighten up his ideas? Very often what many of these employers need is more competition for the labour they employ at higher rates of wages. But what will happen as a result of the freeze? Such an employer will be able to remain in business. The low wages which he pays will be frozen. There will be no need for him to improve his methods or change his ideas, for his employees will be unlikely to leave him in the course of the next six or twelve months, or even longer, because they will prefer the certainty of a job at their low wages to the possibility of unemployment if they leave and go in search of a job at higher wages. I do not think that the Government have sufficiently thought out the consequences of their policy, particularly if, as I expect, it is likely to fail.
Where do they go from there? Once embarked on this kind of exercise and having taken powers of compulsion and freezing of the wages structure in this way, if it fails they will then seem to take even more severe measures next time. There is no turning back. That is why this debate is of such crucial importance.
In the new situation introduced by these Amendments and the White Paper, what is the relevance of the Selective Employment Tax? The direct result of this tax is to increase many prices, so that the Government themselves are responsible for increases. Their right hand is unaware of what their left hand is doing. They will be creating pressure by putting up the cost of living, which will inevitably lead to further demands for wage increases. What would have helped in the Budget and what would help even now would be a tough and well-based payroll tax instead of this stupid Selective Employment Tax.
Even if one accepts the aims of the principles of the Bill as it is to be amended, how competent are the measures taken to achieve the desired end? I have no reticence about saying, because I have heard it discussed in many circles, how easy it will be to get round


many of the Bill's provisions by such upgrading. There will be loaders first-class, second-class and third-class. There will be constant changes in status so that employers can get round the Bill and cooperate with their workers in doing so.
There is a case which highlights the difficulties of the Government which is quoted in today's Daily Mail. It says:
Britain's 40,000 bakers, the first workers to challenge the incomes policy with a series of strikes, have had their pay and productivity deal frozen.
They were given a 14 per cent. increase after months of negotiation—bringing their basic pay up to £14 1s. 9d. for a 40-hour week—in return for manpower flexibility, a new shift system, less overtime and other concessions.
They were agreeing to the conditions necessary for greater productivity.
The contract was agreed on July 7, but it was not formally signed until July 22—two days after the Government's official freeze date.
The men who bake the bread have lost their rise, but the men who deliver it, the roundsmen, got a 12s.-a-week increase, with the Prices and Incomes Board's approval, before the clamp-down.
It was entirely a matter of luck on which side of the line they happened to land.
Was the crisis so unexpected, were so few preparations taken that the Government were caught completely off guard by this? Is there not, even now, a great confusion in the mind of the Government between two entirely different crises? There is the balance of payments crisis, on the one hand, and the prices policy crisis, on the other. The two things are not the same and it is a great mistake to treat them as though they were.
To deal with the provisions for a standstill on incomes, how is one going to discriminate between increases in pay genuinely resulting from promotion to work at a higher level and the regrading of posts in order to enable highly competent employers to pay their employees more? As I see these Amendments, it will be impossible for the Government to do this. This policy will be riddled with anomalies. Some employers will co-operate with their workmen in order to achieve higher wages by skilful avoidance measures, and so on, and others will not.
This will lead to the most incredible feelings of unrest. The Government have

put the trade union leaders in an impossible position. Responsible trade union leaders are trying to co-operate with the Government and maintain a wages policy and yet other people on the shop floor, giving an alternative form of leadership, are saying that the rank and file in the unions can disregard their leaders. What are trade union leaders going to think, and how much more impossible is their position going to become? How do the Government, in their White Paper, justify the distinction between allowing increases of pay due to regular increments of specified amounts within a predetermined range or scale and an increase in pay for a group of employees as a whole? In some occupations increases come naturally as a result of prearrangement while in others they are the result of collective bargaining. How can the Government justify allowing one and not another?
This Bill is the most direct encouragement, certainly in modern legislative history, of breach of contract that any Government have ever introduced. How can the Government hold their head high again when they are trying, through this policy, to justify the grossest of interferences with contracts freely negotiated and agreed? Sanctity of contract was and is a very important conception, and I should have thought, nowhere more so than in industrial bargaining. When the Prime Minister was in opposition he became the great authority for this when he attacked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) for his introduction of a wages freeze. Now the chickens have really come home to roost. Where is this process to end? If the Government's stated aims are not achieved—and I do not believe that they will be—what will happen then? The Government have succeeded in making the prices and incomes policy merely a matter of keeping wages and salaries down by a system alternately of fiddling and then of bullying.
The incomes policy would begin to make some sense if the Government were also to declare that wages and salaries in this or that form of industry are too low for justice or efficiency to be achieved. Some backward employers have not been squeezed hard enough by the pressure for higher earnings. What incentive is there


for employers to provide the right conditions and increase productivity under this Bill? It is the Government's responsibility as well as that of employers, to provide conditions in which good earnings are possible, and if there is one tremendous gap in the policy of this Government it is the total absence of a positive labour market policy.
There are two reasons why the present freeze would prevent any improvement in productivity. The threat of unemployment has always been a factor making workpeople feel insecure. It has always prevented the total co-operation of trade unions in suggested beneficial industrial changes. It has created an irrational objection and resistance to change. Now this Labour Government are directly trying to encourage some degree of unemployment. What psychological effect do they think that this is going to have? The second reason is that once one has a freeze of productivity agreements, when agreements in train are not implemented, when there is an indiscriminate freeze, again the psychological effect is tremendous. The men will lose confidence.
It is wholly wrong for a Bill—because this is what these Amendments amount to—such as Part IV to be introduced into this House by means of Amendments in a Committee of 25 Members. Today we have been able, because of this Motion, to discuss some of the matters which could have been discussed on Second Reading, but this is by no means a Second Reading debate. There are many alternatives which many hon. Members would like to put forward. It is not right to say that the Conservative and Liberal Oppositions and Labour back benchers have no alternatives to put forward.
There are many of us who would have liked to have considered the great expenditure on defence, particularly as the balance of payments issue and what we spend east of Suez have become so intermixed with this prices policy issue. All of these matters have reference to this question. We should like to know why the Prime Minister thought that it was important at this time to introduce this freeze when a few days ago he was so very optimistic. What has occurred to make the Government ready to resort to these shabby methods of trying to get their way?
These methods would not have been tolerated by a Labour Opposition. I can imagine what the shouts would have been if this Part IV had been introduced by a Tory Government. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I am glad to be associated with back-bench Members of both sides of the House who have protested in the name of the House of Commons that this procedure should have been resorted to. We shall certainly vote in favour of this Motion this evening.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. David Marquand: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said early in his speech that very serious constitutional issues were involved. I agree with him, and it is precisely because of this that I object most strongly to this Motion. Running through the speeches of Oppotion Members have been two quite separate questions. One has been, "Should we or should we not have a Second Reading on Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Bill?", and the other question has been whether Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Bill should be taken in its Committee stage on the Floor of the House. It is only the second of these two questions which is on the Order Paper and on which we are to vote.

Mr. Hooson: It is impossible to have this debate without the Motion being worded in the way that it is. One cannot put down a Motion asking for a Second Reading of a Bill which has already received its Second Reading. That is why it was necessary for the Opposition to resort to this Motion.

Mr. Marquand: We are asked this evening to vote upon the Motion that the Standing Committee should be discharged of its functions and that the Bill should be taken by a Committee of the whole House. As someone who believes very strongly in the need for greater Parliamentary control over the Executive, for greater opportunities for backbenchers to discuss wide-ranging issues of policy, I think that this is a very retrograde Motion. The logic of the Motion, and it ran throughout what the Leader of the Opposition said, is that controversial, complex details of legislation, if they are important, ought to be debated by


a Committee of the whole House. If this were to happen, it is absolutely incontrovertible that we would tie ourselves up increasingly in the kind of dreary time-consuming and archaic procedures which we have on the Finance Bill and we should have less time to debate really important issues concerning national and international affairs.
I have been a Member for only three months and I speak with a certain diffidence on this subject. While I have been a Member I have spent a lot of time—sometimes in the Chamber, more often, I confess, out of it—listening to and waiting for debates on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill to be completed. I should have liked desperately to debate such issues as the United Nations, relations between Eastern and Western Europe, and all kinds of foreign affairs. We have hardly discussed industrial relations as a separate topic. If we accept the proposition that important and controversial details must be considered by a Committee of the whole House, we inhibit ourselves even more—and heaven knows we are inhibited enough already from discussing the wide-ranging issues which I thought that Parliamentary reformers really wanted to discuss.

Mr. Orme: Many of us on this side of the Committee go a long way with the tenor of my hon. Friend's argument. He says that we should debate the important issues on the Floor of the House. Would he say what is more important than this Bill? There has not been a Bill like this in 20 years. It affects every man, woman and child in the country. Surely, therefore, we should have the opportunity to debate it fully on the Floor of the House. This is what we are asking for. I am sure that that is what this Chamber is for.

Mr. Marquand: With respect, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. In order to obtain greater control over the Executive and to strengthen the power of back benchers in getting their claws on the details of legislation—and it is the details which matter, not the vague general principles—I should like to see a strengthening of the Committee system, with much more powerful specialist legislative committees dealing, as a matter of general procedure, with similar Bills and experts

on a given subject dealing with all Bills on that subject referred to their committee. This is the path which we should be following if we want to strengthen the power of back bench Members to control the Government. I want to control them as much as any hon. Member.

Mr. Michael English: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and wish to strengthen his argument. Does he realise that the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was misconceived? My hon. Friend's argument is correct, because the House of Commons could do anything. The Motion need not propose that the Bill should be committed to the whole House. It could propose that there should be another Second Reading. There could be half a dozen Second Readings. The House of Commons can do anything, and procedurally it could consider such a Motion.

Mr. Marquand: I do not think that I should go into that matter, not out of discourtesy, but because procedural arguments terrify me. I do not understand the procedure of the House of Commons. When I hear procedural arguments I am seized by a mixture of sheer terror and complete incomprehension. Therefore, I will not pursue that point.

Sir John Hobson: Sir John Hobson (Warwick and Leamington) rose——

Mr. Marquand: No; I have given way a lot. I will give way in a minute.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was right in saying that there is an important constitutional issue at stake. The issue is this: how are we to reconcile the institutions of Parliamentary government with the increasing power and ever-extending rôle which the State must necessarily have in the sort of economic system towards which we are moving? We have to think about that very hard. The only way to do it is by changing, modernising and adapting our procedures to the requirements of a different age from the age in which they were devised. My objection to the Motion is that it does not do this. instead, it uses old procedures and archaic formulæ of exactly the kind from which we should be getting away.

Sir J. Hobson: Since the hon. Gentleman attacks the Opposition for the form of the Motion, may I assure him that it is not possible for us to debate on Second Reading a Bill which has already been debated on Second Reading, and to which Clauses are to be added. This matter was carefully considered. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, it is not possible to have two Second Reading debates on the same Bill.

Mr. Marquand: I have given my reasons why I intend to vote against the Motion from the procedural point of view. What the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) says is further proof of the fact that we need to modernise our procedures. If we are so snarled up in procedural red tape that the Opposition cannot table the Motion which they want to table, so much the worse for procedural red tape.
I should like to deal briefly with some of the points made about the Clauses which it is hoped to add to the Bill. I gather than it is out of order for me to speak about the merits. Therefore, I shall simply try to deal with one or two of the arguments which have been put forward.
Hon. Members have been speaking as though my right hon. Friend the First Secretary proposes to take permanent powers. He proposes only a six months' standstill and a further six months of limited freeze. This is a general point, but it should be borne in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) gave the reasons which, in his opinion, led the Government to bring forward a statutory freeze. As I understood it, he argued that, on the face of it, the Government had done this as a result of American pressure. If we want an effective voluntary standstill, it seems absolutely clear to me that we must have legislative backing behind it. I entirely accept the argument of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary.
The difficulty about an incomes policy is this. I believe that most people would like to co-operate. Most people realise the urgency of our economic situation. Most people know perfectly well that we cannot pay ourselves in money incomes more than we produce without landing ourselves in disaster. But there is human

nature, and nobody wants to be "played for a sucker", to use an American expression. People would like an effective freeze, but nobody wants it if he thinks that it will not apply to other people. Therefore it seems to me that if we do want to have a freeze we must have statutory backing behind it so that we do not have an unco-operative minority, thus to break down the whole freeze. This seems to me to be an entirely valid argument.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Does my hon. Friend not agree that under the present proposals legislatively it is simply a threat to dividend distribution and profit making, but legislatively this is very much tied up and that this is the essential difference?

Mr. Marquand: I am not quite sure that I follow that interjection. If I follow it aright, I am afraid I just disagree with the point behind my hon. Friend's interjection. If we impose an effective price freeze we deal with profits in that way. We have only to look at what has happened to profits during the period of the voluntary policy to see that, because the policy has been more effective up to now with prices than it has with wages, and, as a result, profits have fallen very dramatically. We have only to read the financial Press to see the sorts of opinions which are put forward, and which reflect those of hon. Members opposite, and whose criticism is that the policy, as it is working at the moment, is too damaging to profits and breaks the mainspring of the capitalist economy. I would direct my hon. Friend's attention to these facts and ask him to look at the figures and I would think he would not come away with any other possible view.
To deal, finally, with one other point, which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, who talked about productivity. Exactly the same arguments apply to productivity and productivity agreements as those which I have tried to put forward as my reason for being in favour of legislative backing for the freeze. It may well be true that if we give a group of workers increases as a result of their having increased productivity this would be economically beneficial in one sense, but what would the effect be on every other group of


workers in the community? We sometimes tend to forget that it is not open to everyone to increase his productivity easily or quickly. Some people can. In industries where there is a high capital content and a low labour content it is possible to do this. If we allow productivity agreements during the period of the freeze we break the freeze, because everybody else says, "If those chaps can get it, as a result of the pure accident of their being in an industry in which productivity can easily be increased, why should I not get it?" In this way we destroy the essential element of fairness, which must be there if the policy is to work at all.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I was interested by what the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) said, and I shall come back to him in a minute if I may. I thought the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) had an important point today when he hinted at the fact that Parliament is losing its power. I must say that, in going round the country, I have felt that this is happening. People are saying so at the present time. Therefore, I was amazed that the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary should have used the phrase "the rights of Parliament", because Parliament is in disrepute at the present time, and surely this high handed action of the Government in forcing the Bill through the very small Committee upstairs will bring Parliament into further disrepute. I have seen some people driving cars with stickers on the back saying, "Guy Fawkes, come back. All is forgiven." Does the First Secretary subscribe to that slogan? Will he be Guy Fawkes who will blow Parliament up another time? In any event I feel that the failures of the Government in managing our affairs have contributed to the disrepute of Parliament.
It is perfectly obvious that Part IV of the Bill ought to be discussed on the Floor of the House. I am not a member of the Standing Committee; I am one of 600 hon. Members who are not on the Standing Committee; and a Measure so important, in a situation so dangerous to this country, should be given a Second Reading debate and the whole spectrum of opinion in the House of Commons

should be seen. The Leader of the Opposition said today that there are many different cross currents within the party on this issue. I happen to be one of the cross currents. I believe that the Prime Minister's statement on 20th July had plenty of sense in it. Of course it should have been made three months earlier. If it had been made on 20th April this situation would never have arisen.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Thirteen years earlier.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: No, three months. But he did not, but if he had made it on 20th April then of course there would not have been any need for Part IV. The Government having got into a jam, having acted too late, I am bound to say that there is a lot of sense in having a freeze. It will be a gesture to the world. One of the strongest reasons for our present situation is the loss of confidence by the world in our currency, and the fixed idea people overseas have that we cannot control our own inflation. One of the most disconcerting things to foreigners is the rise in incomes bearing no relation to productivity.
I asked the First Secretary on 28th July by how much productivity of the nation—not just industry, but for the nation as a whole—had gone up in the last weeks of 1965 as compared with 1964, and the answer was 1¼ per cent. The productivity for the nation as a whole has gone up by only 1¼ per cent. So in 1965 instead of having a rise of incomes of 9 per cent. we should have had in truth wages, salaries and prices remaining static. Only in that way could we have prevented the inflation and, I believe, held the confidence of the world. The deflationary attitudes and actions which the Government have taken may be too late, and it may be we shall have another crisis in the autumn. Indeed, the Prime Minister—we have to admit he is right—said that we must really plan the economy on a stable basis, with 2 per cent. of unemployment, 1 per cent. of whom are unemployable and the other 1 per cent. will be on interchange from one sort of industry to another.
But while all that is working out, it seems to me, any Government have to show the world that they mean business, and of course we are burying our heads


in the sand if we believe we can get wages and salaries and prices freeze on a voluntary basis. The First Secretary has been touring round the country in the last 20 months trying to get a voluntary basis, but with no real success at all, certainly with no success to impress our foreign creditors.
I have listened to the debate today and I know what my hon. Friends say about Part IV that it is a hamhanded Socialist Measure full of anomalies and difficulties and will not make for efficiency, and that in the end it will fail. I realise all that, but it seems to me that if the Government who want this as a temporary expedient to gain time to take other measures for the benefit of the country, then I would be inclined to say. let us in Parliament, as a council of State, get together, look at this, and see whether we should oppose the Bill as hard as we have. That is why I say I am one of the cross currents in my own party, some of which take a different view.
There are things to be done, and know the Prime Minister realises it—to improve productivity, to look again at restrictive practices, and the reform of industrial relations. Therefore, I believe that the inconvenience and unpopularity of the Bill would have been worth while if as a Council of State we got together and dealt with the problem. Those are the reasons why I should have liked to have had the Bill on the Floor of the House, and to have heard the Government's answer to these questions. There are many other issues, such as whether we can afford to continue to let sterling carry such a large share of world trade as a reserve currency, and whether we ought not to try and get our neighbours in Europe to produce a reserve currency which would take some of the strain off sterling. It is ridiculous that we should continue to get into trouble because sterling is a reserve currency. If it were not, it would not affect the City to a great extent, because all its insurance and exports could be done——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not relating his remarks to the Motion on the Order Paper. I hope that he will do so.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I realised that I was going a little wide of the mark,

Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was led away by my enthusiasm.
Those are the sorts of issues which I should have liked to hear debated on Second Reading. It is ridiculous for this Bill to be buried upstairs in a small Committee. The issues are too big. We should be allowed to have a say in them, and that is why I shall vote for the Motion that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: May I first place on record my personal objection that an important debate on a matter of procedure should have been interrupted at six o'clock by a piece of medieval pageantry. I objected on the last occasion that it happened and, to be consistent, I must do it again. The whole House would regret the temporary absence of Mr. Speaker on any occasion, but I intend to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to see whether some form of procedure could not be introduced in order that the Royal Assent to Bills should not necessarily result in the suspension of the sitting of the House.
May I declare my personal interest in today's debate, as a member of Standing Committee B which is charged with the duty of considering the Bill? I am not the only member of that Committee who has been listening to the debate, of course. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) is present now, and at various times my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) have been here.
It would be nice to believe that the House is so concerned about the burdens which have been placed on that Committee that they wish to safeguard our health and wellbeing. However, I think that that is pressing it a little hard. It would be nice to think that Mr. Speaker could give his attention to some of the inconvenience which we have experienced that need not necessarily have arisen. I think that he will take the point.
The main reason which has been put forward in support of the Motion is that hon. Members should be able to express their personal points of view on legislation at some stage or other in the proceedings of Parliament. There has been


a growing claim by hon. Members of the Opposition over the past months that the custom and practice of the House is that not only should we have the chance of taking part in a debate but that we should have the right to speak. That came out forcibly in the debate on the Motion of censure against the Chairman of Ways and Means some little time ago. It was mentioned that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) sat for seven hours and did not get a chance to speak. Again, when the guillotine Motion came up, it was said that everyone should have the right to speak. However, I think that that is going too far. We should have the chance to speak but not the automatic right to speak, and there is a difference. It has been claimed that justice has not been done. I would suggest to the House that we do not ask for justice, but we do claim our rights, because once one moves away from justice one gets nearer to charity, and no one in the House is asking for charity.
The rights of hon. Members of the House of Commons on matters of procedure are laid down in the Standing Orders. If hon. Members object, the way to get over the problem is by changing the Standing Orders. I, for one, would be in favour of changing parts of them.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) claimed that the Government are asking for things without changing the Standing Orders. In support of the Government, I would emphasise that they have done nothing in this matter which is not permitted by the Standing Orders of the House. Whilst the Standing Orders protect the rights of minorities and of the Opposition, presumably they are also there to protect the rights of the Government in order that they can get their legislation through the House.
A second issue which has been put forward by the supporters of the Motion is that this vital matter of prices and incomes and the wage freeze is being considered by a small Committee hidden away upstairs. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) talked about it being buried. There are several ghosts walking through here, as

a result of our labours upstairs, including the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who is a substantial ghost.
On that Committee, there are 25 Members, which is the usual number for a Standing Committee. There are ten Conservative Members, and it is not my fault if there is no Liberal Member, no independent Labour Member from Northern Ireland and no Plaid Cwmru Member. The way to get over that is for them to get bigger representations in the House.
Of the 15 Labour Members, two are known opponents of the Bill. There is no secret about it, because they have expressed their opposition to it both in the Chamber and outside wherever they could put their point of view. The Government decide who shall be on the Committee, and the Government, with a paper majority of 97 in the House, have a majority of one in the Standing Committee considering this vital matter.

Mr. Roebuck: Very fair.

Mr. Ogden: It is very fair; some of us think that they have been too fair. Certainly they have taken quite a risk.
When I asked that my name should go forward for inclusion as a member of that Committee, I entered into no commitments that I would support the Bill in every way. No one came to me and said, "We will put you on the Committee if you guarantee to sit quietly day after day and vote in the way that we want." There was no commitment at all. It may be that I find myself a member of it because I belong neither to the "keep right" nor the "keep left". It could be said that I belong, rather, to the "keep quiet", though, as you will know from the number of times that I try to catch your eye and fail, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is not altogether my fault.
I think that most people would agree that although the Bill is not being considered by a Committee of the whole House, there are more expressions of opinion in the Standing Committee than is normal.

Mr. John Biffen: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I say that it is the monumental silence of the hon. Gentleman in the Committee, reflecting no articulate opinion, which


distresses us so much, particularly when we hear that he volunteered. If he volunteered to go on the Committee in order to give testimony by his silence, that is an extraordinary Parliamentary situation.

Mr. Ogden: This has happened before. I was referred to this morning by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), who gave me prior notice that he was going to do so. He was reading my election address, and he described me as an extinct volcano. The hon. Gentleman did his best to make sure that we would join in the Committee debates and share the duties carried out by other hon. Members, but if they want to sit up and chat all night, let them do so. We have our ways of expressing our opinions. The hon. Member for Oswestry is well-known as a clever Member of this House. He knows the rules of the game in Committee as well as we do, and his temptations are to be pushed on one side.
The Government have taken an enormous risk. They have a majority of 97 in the House but a majority of only one in the Committee. The Opposition say that they have introduced this Motion because nobody knows what is happening in this tiny Committee upstairs. I just do not understand this, because we have had a constant procession of people in and out of the Committee room, so much so that I felt like one of the inhabitants of the Zoo. We found that people were leaving the Chamber to come upstairs to see what was going on. At times the room was so crowded that others could not get in. There have also, of course, been Press reports, though these have not always been accurate. We were once told about the "Cousins alliance with Tory M.P.s", but that did not last long. It was soon shot down in flames.
At 3 o'clock this morning there was a dispute about how many mattresses were available. There is no reason why anyone in this House should not know what is going on in that Committee. I appreciate that many who do not agree with my viewpoint spent part of the night listening to what was going on, and to accommodate the increased numbers of those who want to hear the proceedings we are moving to a larger Committee room tomorrow. The Opposition have played a full partin our discussions. There has been no filibustering. They have put

forward powerful arguments, which have received proper consideration by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and they have been answered.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton is capable of putting his point of view before any audience. He has done so to his satisfaction, and he has received some support. It is a matter for regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) had to go to another part of the world on Parliamentary duties and was not able to support my right hon. Friend. But this was a matter of choice. My hon. Friend had Parliamentary duties in two places and he could not be in both places at the same time. No one has prevented my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton from putting his point of view, and what he has said reflects views put forward on the Floor of the House.
Perhaps I might now state my attitude to productivity, prices and incomes. I do not need to prove my loyalty to my constituents or to my trade union. Some of my constituents are as opposed to this Measure as is anyone in the House. My trade union, the National Union of Mine-workers, by a majority—and it does not concern me whether it is a large majority or a small one—has been opposed to the prices and incomes policy since it was adumbrated about three or four weeks ago, and it will be even more opposed to this Measure, but I am here not as the delegate either of my constituents of West Derby or of my union. They are entitled to my industry, but they are entitled also to my judgment.
As they say in Lancashire, "You never get owt for nowt". The price that we have to pay for some of the things that we want is in the Bill as it was before the House and as it is upstairs. Some of us are prepared to pay that price, while others are not. I respect the judgment of those who are not, and all that I ask them to do is to respect my judgment in being prepared to pay it.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) for giving us the benefit of his experience in the Standing Committee, which we should not have heard about had this debate not taken place.
Perhaps I might return to what I am sure the hon. Member will agree is the real point of the debate, namely, that the Prices and Incomes Bill is one of the most important political and economic issues that this House has had to consider since the war, and that it should, therefore, be discussed fully on the Floor of the House.
It has been said that the Motion is not correct in that it does not suggest that there should be a Second Reading of the new Clauses. One cannot have two Second Readings of the same Bill. I think that we have now got that point clear. There was some misunderstanding about that, but what is clear is that the principle—and the Floor of the House is the place for discussing principles, and not details—is one of great national importance.
I have been interested in Parliamentary reform for many years. I have always advocated that certain Bills ought to be taken upstairs, and that we should considerably extend our Committee system. However, there must be some exceptions to that rule if we are to carry out those reforms. We have in the past few weeks seen considerable inroads in the rights of private Members, in the guillotining of the Selective Employment Payments Bill and now over the Prices and Incomes Bill. These are cases where the principle should be discussed on the Floor of the House. They are of such national importance that they must be exceptions to any reforms which we may make for the future.
I am in favour of extending the Committee system for all non-contentious Bills and, indeed, for all Bills which are not of very great national importance. The Prime Minister has described this situation as "unprecedented". He said that such measures have not been taken even in war time. I think that that is untrue, but they have certainly not been taken in peace time. They are unprecedented and that, in itself, surely justifies my right hon. Friend's case.
This is one of the greatest problems which the House of Commons has had to consider for a long time. I was glad to hear the speeches opposite, especially that of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), treating this as a House of Commons matter. Defences of

the Government's position, saying that it was satisfactory to deal with the Bill in Standing Committee, are preposterous, having regard to the nature of the problem. The powers which are being given to the First Secretary—he did not seem to understand the point of the Motion—are arbitrary powers of a very serious kind——

Mr. Ogden: The powers have not been given to the First Secretary yet. The hon. Member is presumably referring to the powers which may be given under Part IV. They will not be given until the Bill has been brought back to the Floor of the House.

Mr. Neave: The powers which it is proposed to give to the First Secretary—if the hon. Member prefers that expression—are very serious and arbitrary peacetime powers. This House has seldom had to deal with anything like them. It is, surely, only reasonable that it should have the right to discuss them.
It is perhaps appropriate that, this week, in the Library, the exhibits include the Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights, which was a protest against the oppressive Government of 1688. The First Secretary and those hon. Members who support the Government's position for not allowing the matter full discussion on the Floor of the House should read the Declaration of Rights, because this House has in the past had to stand out against Governments which have sought to curtail its powers of scrutiny and criticism, just as hon. Gentlemen opposite have been trying to do.
I hope that hon. Members are aware of the great inroads made by the Executive in the past few years. Those of us who have been here for some years have noticed very great changes. This applies to Governments of both political parties. The customary rights of debate have been curtailed in a way which is likely to be a serious precedent. Hon. Members now on the Government side may find that these precedents are very uncomfortable when they are back on this side of the House. They should not support these precedents, which are being set by their own Government, without very serious thought.
The Times, in a scalding article on Monday entitled "Recipe for Bad Law", drew attention to what the Government


are doing and pointed out that these statutory powers to freeze wages and prices went far beyond the original Second Reading debate on the Bill, and deprived the House of a Second Reading debate. It said:
It is the duty of Parliament to protect the rights of people against arbitrary powers and arbitrary government.
Therefore, those who have said that this is a constitutional question are not exaggerating. Hon. Members on both sides have made this clear, and the debate is all the more important on that account.
This is emergency legislation introduced by a frightened Government and affecting the whole economy. The Government are no longer free agents in handling the economy. They are tied foot and hand by their creditors and that is why they have been forced into taking compulsory powers in regard to the economy which they perhaps would not otherwise have taken. However, they have no alternative and this is all the more reason why we should debate the Bill on the Floor of the House and not limit discussion to a Standing Committee.
These pressures on the Government come from people who would not impose these measures on their own nations if they could avoid doing so. Certainly the United States would not wish to take these steps, any more than European countries. I very much fear that, as a result of taking these powers, and the possible results which may flow from them, in the next few months we may be bidding goodbye for some time to economic freedom.
If these powers are applied in the way they could be, incentive to competition and enterprise will be frozen. Also frozen will be all the efforts of industry in struggling against a mass of red tape in trying to justify any action it wishes to take on prices and wages. This 12-months' hiatus in industry will be extremely serious in the long term.
At the end of this 12-months' period what will happen? I suggest that there will be a pent up release of wage demands which may create far worse inflation than we have had. The repercussions may particularly affect the nation's technology. It is clear that these steps will have a big effect on what is called the brain drain. Agreements which at present exist between the Government and their

technologists will be postponed for the next 12 months. At present the Civil Service cannot fill the greater proportion of vacancies in Government technological establishments.
As the House knows, there are many scientists and technologists in my constituency. This is a serious matter for them. Many people are receiving an expensive education through the taxpayer for the purpose of working in scientific and technological spheres. These people will not wish to stay in this country if measures of this sort continue and it seems clear that many of them will go to the United States and other countries which are prepared to pay, and pay well, for their services. Considerable dangers will follow for the future of our economy.
The Government are taking steps today which are unprecedented, as the Prime Minister has admitted. One particularly important point made today is that the new Clauses added to the Bill create new offences. For the House of Commons to say that it is going to deprive itself, as a result of the Division tonight, of its right to discuss those new offences is extraordinary, and hon. Members will be sorry as a result. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who support the Government in the vote tonight should remember that, having set these precedents, it will be difficult to get away from them in future.
We are, therefore, discussing a strictly House of Commons matter. Hon. Members on both sides, who cherish the rights of the House should, as I have suggested, go to the Library and study the Declaration of Rights—and, very appropriately, that document is on exhibition in the Library this week.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) was not correct in assuming that there will be a mass evacuation from this country——

Mr. Neave: I said "some".

Mr. Atkinson: —of technologists and scientists as a result of the policies of the Government. There are many reasons why these people are leaving Britain, but I do not believe that those reasons are related to the arguments being


adduced by the Opposition today. Indeed, the Government's policies are designed to cure some of the existing problems that have driven some of our scientists to leave for other countries.
Unfortunately, some of those hon. Members opposite who have aroused the greatest passion in me for the last seven hours have disappeared, and that has, to some extent, deflated my desire to take up some of their arguments. At the same time, it is essential to examine some of the recent arguments presented in this debate, and particularly those advanced by the spokesman for the Liberal Party. In passing, I would say that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who has just disappeared, made some very attractive overtures for a coalition, but no matter what shades of opinion may be held on this side I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's idea of a coalition is even a starter in the present situation.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) made some very interesting points and posed some interesting questions. After referring to the Ruling given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), Chairman of the Standing Committee, that the new Clauses were in order, he spoke of the whole subject of seeking advice. One of the curious things about this place is that advice is very difficult to get. I want to be careful how I speak, because I do not want to accuse anyone of not doing the sort of thing they said they would do.
My point is that when the Government set about framing these new Clauses they sought the best advice available as to whether the Clauses were in order. The advice available in this place on procedure, and so on, was that the Government were correct in going ahead, including the new Clauses, and discussing them in Committee. The Chairman of the Standing Committee then has to decide whether this procedure is in order, but in that process he has to go to the same people who have already advised the Government—because, in the main, they are the experts on procedural matters, and the like. Of necessity, the Chairman of the Standing Committee is bound to get answers consistent with

those given to the Government. We therefore have the curious quirk that the Government seek advice, and are then followed by the Chairman of the Standing Committee who receives from the same people the same advice, and therefore comes to somewhat similar conclusions.
The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the position in which many of us on this side find ourselves. I do not criticise the Government for introducing the Clauses or even for changing their ideas about the Bill. In fact, I welcome that action. I see it as a sign of strength. We who very often are critics of the Government try to persuade them to alter their ideas about the kind of legislation they want to initiate, and as it is an indication of the degree of flexibility that we advocate, I do not criticise the Government for wanting to alter their legislation. But I must speak against the Motion, because I do not believe that we should be dealing with the Bill on the Floor of the House at this stage. I have never advocated taking up the time of the House on this kind of legislation at this stage, whether it be the Finance Bill or any other legislation.
That is not part of my argument and that is why I cannot support the Motion, but I am also a severe critic of the way in which the Government have attempted to achieve their objectives in this situation. Having looked at the matter very seriously, I came to the conclusion that Part IV comprises new issues and not only changes the character of the Bill but its very basis. Therefore, the Government should be considering introducing an entirely new Bill concurrently with the legislation being discussed upstairs.
My criticism of the Government is that they are now introducing an entirely new set of factors which should be formulated in terms of a new Bill and not added in this way upstairs as an additional part of the legislation. The only conclusion I can come to is that I must join my hon. Friends who will abstain from recording a vote this evening. That is what I propose to do and, like other colleagues, I ask as many of my hon. Friends as possible to consider this approach and to do likewise as the only logical expression of criticism in this situation.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery made another interesting point about the situation relative to the suggestions made recently by the Prime Minister about all-party specialist committees. This is very much related to the position in which we are placed. We would not be in so much trouble if we had an all-party specialist committee dealing with economic affairs, because we should be able to probe the origin of the advice given to the Government which has necessitated introducing this kind of legislation. There is a great danger in this. If we were able to probe origins of that sort we could find the difficulty between the D.E.A. and the Treasury at the moment. We should also understand the issues and discussions in the Cabinet. Precisely because of situations of this kind we shall never get all-party specialist committees.
While we can concede the point in terms of economic policies, it would be dangerous if this caught on with the defence chiefs or the Foreign Office. So these suggestions are non-starters. They would change completely the relationship between back benchers, Parliament and Government and give us access to Cabinet decisions and—more important—access to the origin of the advice fed into the Cabinet.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the Government having to satisfy the Opposition in terms of confidence as to the measures they were now introducing. He has missed the point entirely because the opposition to Government policy is no longer on the other side of the House. Opposition to this Government is now no longer there but is the London bankers and those in Zurich, Frankfurt, Basle and other centres of banking in Europe. Far from accepting the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that it is the job of the Government to satisfy hon. Members opposite, I say that it is nothing of the kind.
It is now generally accepted that we are attempting to satisfy the opposition in those other places. This is supported by the behaviour of the Press and the radio because, when the announcements were made by the Prime Minister——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is getting very wide of the Motion on the

Order Paper. I hope that he will relate his remarks to the Motion.

Mr. Atkinson: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I get too much into the habit of following the Leader of the Opposition I shall often be out of order. That is precisely what I was doing but I shall tread no further that way. Because of the limitation and restriction of the House on back benchers which gives the maximum time to Front Benchers and Privy Councillors, I have only about five minutes in which to conclude my remarks.
Important issues have been raised in the debate. It has been suggested that hon. Members on this side who do not accept wage restraint or legislation against wage increases are advocating a return to the jungle, with a free-for-all for everyone. This is not so. Those of us who are opposed to wages legislation make a constructive contribution to the argument which is now taking place.
The new Part IV is a contradiction in itself. The Government propose to take extraordinary measures to deal with both prices and wages. This is a contradictory situation. We have always argued that there is no longer any relationship between the problems of the post-war years and those of the pre-war years. Before 1939 we suffered from over-production and an entirely different set of circumstances existed. Since the war, the problem has been underproduction. In this situation, the suggested measures are no longer tenable. They are blunt instruments, not related to present-day requirements. They may be related to the requirements of the days when there was over-production and, therefore, the problem of accumulation and slump conditions. We cannot now have a policy of restraint, of freezing, of complete control of both prices and wages. This is a contradiction if it is desired to bring about greater productivity.
We are advocates of a strict licensing system—price control, perhaps beyond the suggestions contained in the new Clauses. If we could establish a price licensing system or price control, a climate would be created in which our other objectives could be achieved. Thus, when worker and management wished to negotiate a settlement, they would have


to negotiate it against the background of price control. The employer would have to concede any wage advance at the expense of dividends. He would have to concede a settlement which would help to secure the redistribution of wealth which is part of our objective.
The employer, in making a concession to the worker in this way, would have to look to the amount he was ploughing back into his industry in terms of modernisation, new techniques, and so on. He would have to do that so as to make the plant capable of securing the necessary productivity to cover the settlement.
The worker, recognising the economic situation, would no doubt have to concede a great deal. He might have to make concessions at the expense of restrictive practices. He might have to make an agreement on the basis of joint productivity. Putting the pattern together in this way, we say that the use of a flexible, sensitive method of price control, having free wage bargaining at the same time, is the positive way to help us out of this situation, bringing together these opposing forces by using modern sensitive techniques as part of our effort to solve the problem.
Far from being advocates of going back to the jungle and to a free-for-all, we are providing some economic answers to the present situation. In the brevity with which I have had to cover my points I may have created some wrong impressions in some people's minds, but I have tried to suggest, in our rejection of the Government's policy of introducing price and wage controls side by side, that they are creating an economic contradiction.
Those of us who have said that we believe in free wage bargaining and strict price control at the same time are arguing logically and constructively. I have already explained why I cannot accept the Opposition's Motion. Nor can I accept the Government's attempt to force these new measures through a Committee. The measures constitute the basis of an entirely new Bill, and for those reasons I shall abstain from voting.

9.1 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: I wish, first, to apologise to a number of hon. Members whose speeches I have not

heard during the debate. My only excuse is that owing to duty on Standing Committee B I did not have time to prepare my thoughts on what I would say now until late this afternoon, but I have received a report of what each hon. Member has said and I hope to refer to the themes of their speeches during my remarks.
I also want to put on record that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition wishes to withdraw the allegation he made during his opening speech that the right hon. and hon. Members on the Liberal Bench voted against taking the Bill on the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend wishes to say that he had misread the record of the Division, and he freely acknowledges that the right hon. and hon. Liberal Members voted, as did my right hon. and hon. Friends, to take the Bill on the Floor of the House.
My right hon. Friend opened the debate in a formidable manner. He spelt out quietly and incontrovertibly the strongest case to show why the Government were wrong in denying the House an opportunity to discuss the principles of Part IV in full session. The right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary seemed altogether to miss the point of the debate. He stuck like a leech to his prepared script. He made a number of comments on alleged proposals or suggestions by my right hon. Friend which my right hon. Friend had never made, and in every way he totally failed to reply either to my right hon. Friend or to the gravamen of the debate.
The decision whether or not Part IV falls within the scope of the Bill fell to be decided by the Chairman of Standing Committee B. He made his decision, and that decision was accepted without reservation by all the Members of the Committee. That decision was made. It is past. That matter is settled for the Committee. It is quite another question, and it happens to be the one we are debating today, whether or not the principles enshrined in Part IV of the Bill should have been debated at some stage on the Floor of the House. That is the issue of this debate, and it is the issue to which the First Secretary of State did not address a single coherent argument. I hope that the Leader of the House will fill the gap left by his right hon. Friend and tell us for what possible justifiable


reason the Government decided to deny the House that debate.
Almost every argument produced by the First Secretary of State reinforced, if it needed reinforcement, my right hon. Friend's case. He spoke of new offences. He said that there were no new penalties. He seemed to regard that as the important matter. He did not seem to take into account that Part IV contains a whole range of new offences. Every time he emphasised his point, he added force to my right hon. Friend's contention that here is a major new Measure which is going forward without any debate on the Floor of the House.
There are differences of opinion between those of us who are so far at one about how best the Government could have handled Part IV or how best the Opposition could have phrased their Motion today. But in one form or another, had the Government wished, they could have arranged for the substance of Part IV to be debated in principle on the Floor of the House. I need not weary the House with the various technical ways in which it could have been done. I think that there is no difference between us that, in one way or another, it could have been done. We on this side accept the consequence that, in almost every one of the ways which the Government could have chosen, one of the implications would have been that the House would be kept sitting one or two days longer. Faced with legislation of this importance, what are one or two days in the life of hon. Members if they are doing their duty to their constituents and to the country? So let us hear no argument from the Leader of the House about the holidays of hon. Members.
I shall set out some themes which, had the Government given the House its proper rights, hon. Members on both sides would probably have wanted to raise. Inevitably, I shall make some comments on the state of the economy, but I repeat at the outset what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said only a few days ago, that, basically, the underlying strength of the British economy is immense and that the degree to which we are in trouble at the moment is marginal. That needs to be said so that I shall not, I hope, be accused of crying "Stinking fish" about the country's strength.
I maintain that, first and foremost, if the Government had given the House its rights, hon. Members on both sides would have wished to discuss how, once again, we have got ourselves into this familiar critical situation. We are sure that the crisis is more deep and much more avoidable by early Government action than any which the country has faced for decades. But, wishing as I do to make this speech in as House of Commons a manner as I can, I say at once that it would be quite wrong to pretend that the task facing any Government in this country is an easy one.
Had we had a debate on the Floor of the House about the principles of the new Part of the Bill, it might have been said that all Governments since the war have in their efforts to benefit the citizens of this country tried to do—I hope that the First Secretary of State will listen. I am trying to say something which will meet general agreement. It might be said that all Governments since the war, in their efforts to serve the people of this country, have tried to do too much too fast and as a result have achieved less than they would if they had hastened more slowly.
All I am seeking to say is that there are lessons to be learned and that we on this side of the House have learned lessons. It is our contention that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not learned lessons. Here for the first time in the history of the country—I shall refer to the Prime Minister, but I would just say that he has had the courtesy to send me a note explaining that because of a prior engagement he cannot be here at this stage—we have an economist Prime Minister. Yet we have had in the last twenty months a series of more serious economic misjudgments than the country has ever had to endure before.
I will not weary the House with a dreary catalogue of the instalments of economic medicine that the Government have doled out bit by bit to the country. There are 24 instalments on the record of economic restrictions, with borrowings from abroad and extra taxation. Every time the Government have said, "This time we have got it right. This time the medicine will work." Yet every time, within a few weeks or months, they are back with another dose of medicine. Now we face a critical emergency tied


hand and foot by our debts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) said.
The Prime Minister speaks with public relations optimism, of 2 per cent. unemployment. We think that the measures that the Government have taken may lead to depression even more severe than that. The Government have had to jettison their programme, their policies, their philosophy and their panaceas in one savage return of the birds to roost. Now the country has to endure a squeeze more savage than in any time that can be remembered, with all the consequences for the population that must follow.
On every side there are casualties. We should have liked, if the Government had given us opportunity for debate, to discuss the death of the National Plan, not in any sense of rejoicing. We on this side had doubts, and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends had more than doubts. But we have learned. Yet the First Secretary goes straight off, in his pursuit of the fantasy of a National Plan, from the death of one to create another. He does not seem to have learned at all.
If we had had a chance to debate the principles of the Bill, we should have wanted to discuss my right hon. Friend's contention that the principal casualty of the Government's measures and of Part IV of the new Bill will be, on top of wages, on top of prices and on top of investment, the progress of our economy. We should have wanted to discuss that because we believe that Part IV will damage the supply and demand mechanism, the sensitive reaction to changes in demands of a high standard people, far more than can be justified by the benefits that will be gained.
We would have wished, had we had such a debate, to maintain that the Government, who started off with such good will at home and abroad, have squandered the confidence of the people, have lost the confidence of other countries, and have still kept the arrogant vanity with which they came to office. Pride comes before a fall, but the country has to suffer.
Some of us would have wanted, had we had such a debate, to point out that, though the Prices and Incomes Bill and Part IV of that Bill may have been

recommended by many of our creditors, those creditor countries do not take the same medicine for themselves. Some of us would have wanted to point out that if the Government wished to achieve more confidence abroad they would have done far better to throw overboard their steel legislation rather than try to impose Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Bill. Some of us on all sides of the House would have wanted to point out the consequences of the slide from voluntary to compulsory systems of regulation that the Government have embarked upon.
But it would not only have been the general background to the present crisis that we would have wished to discuss. We would have wished to ask whether the state of the economy is such as to justify the panic measures, the siege economy, that the Government are foisting upon us. If things are so bad that a siege economy is justified, who have brought it about but right hon. Members opposite and are they, in the light of that, the people to be entrusted with the powers to be given by Part IV?
In a state of panic the Government are seeking to impose one strategy with which many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides disagree and we would have wished to discuss the alternative strategies available. Many of us would have wished to comment on the savage and severe deflation which has come on top of taxation and deflation already carried out by the Government and which would of themselves have been more than enough to put our economy to rights, although with far more damage to people and investment, than would have been called for had the Government acted far more promptly.
Some hon. Members, like my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), who made an excellent speech, would have wished to maintain that the measures the Government have decided to take will be futile and even dangerous in the present situation. Some would have wished to say that the attack on earnings is wrong and that the Government should really be attacking unit costs and striking at restrictive practices, whether or not with the connivance of management, while others would have wished to ask the Government what progress was being made by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and whether


even yet the T.U.C. evidence has been submitted to it.
The House enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), which was a notable parliamentary performance. With elegance and eloquence, trenchantly and cogently he tore the Government's behaviour to shreds. His remedy for the present troubles of the nation is not ours but has he no right to express his view in a Second Reading debate on the principles of Part IV?
Had we had this opportunity we would have wished to examine some of the muddles and contradictions and confusions inherent in Government policy and in Part IV. We would have wished to follow the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who also made an excellent speech, in his analysis of how rapidly the Government have changed the essentials of their policy. We would have wished to examine how, on the one hand, the Government could introduce demand deflators like the Selective Employment Tax and the regulator, which to be effective must lead to an increase in prices, and then, on the other hand, bring forward Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Bill seeking to sit on prices.
We would have wished to examine the consequences of Part IV of the Bill and to consider what will happen to pay in the new deflation. We would have wished to ask whether anyone will want or be able to increase pay—except in the case of skilled men, of course, who will still be at a premium. We would have asked whether dividends will, indeed, tend to rise and need any control at all. The likelihood is in the opposite direction.
The House would also have wished to consider the sad fate in the new ice age of productivity agreements. There is good news occasionally and one must welcome the move by the boilermakers and the employers to limit demarcation disputes. What opportunity will there be in the months to come for such productivity bargains to be made?
We would wish to ask what the position of the trade union leaders is to be, left isloated, though acquiescent, and what power the Government have given

to the militants on the shop floors by their clumsy policy. We would wish, though it is a sad subject, to examine the results of the Government's clutch of Measures—[Interruption.] I ask for the First Secretary to keep quiet, or to rise to intervene; he is continually muttering. Had we had the opportunity for a proper debate, we would have wished to consider the sad implications of the Government's policies for housing. We would wish to ask whether the Government are to stop mortgage rates from rising, even though the results will be a famine of investment money with which people might buy houses of their own. We would wish to ask the Government whether it makes sense to hold down rents while rates rise. We would wish to ask the Government whether they are happy with the situation in which they are to attempt to hold down everything except rates and taxes.
We would wish to press the Government to give us evidence why, when the First Secretary cannot tell us of any failure of the voluntary system of notification, he finds it necessary to introduce a system of compulsory notification of price and wage increases. We would wish to ask the Government to weigh in the scales the fairness which they think they will achieve from this standstill with the bitterness to which the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) referred, the bitterness of the railwaymen, the bitterness of the doctors, the bitterness of civil servants and local government officials whose pay and consequently whose pensions are to be damaged, and 100 other groups of whom hon. Members are aware. We would wish to ask the First Secretary why, if it is so urgent that these powers be obtained, he says so constantly that he does not intend to use them. Those are some of the questions which we would wish to ask.
Then we would want to follow the question of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and ask what is to happen after this notorious 12 months' period. Many hon. Members feel that there will be a flood of claims and a torrent of grievances waiting to be satisfied. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) asked forcefully what use these arbitrary powers will be put to when the next crisis under


this Government descends upon the country.
We would wish to press the Government to tell us how deeply they think investment will dip. Investment is caught in a quadruple vice—the diminution of investment grants, the credit squeeze, the Selective Employment Tax squeeze and now there is to be a prices squeeze. When one examines the indifferent casualness with which the Government have imposed the forced loan under the Selective Employment Tax and have not begun to examine its implications for the liquidity of business and the country's investment potential, one is forced to ask them how they can possibly continue to preach efficiency to the country and practice so little of it themselves.
We believe that for a few weeks or a few months the Government may get some degree of partial standstill. We believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said, that the cost of this will be desperate in the middle and long term, that they will discredit the whole system of law, that they will discredit the whole confidence of the country. For the right hon. Gentleman to speak of using the next 12 months constructively is getting far further than hope can justify.
We believe that there is even a danger that these powers will not lapse after 12 months, that they will be taken again. The sad fact is that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have lost all credibility when they tell us that the powers will end in 12 months. We no longer believe that.
Hon Members on all sides of the House are disturbed and apprehensive, and are deprived of the chance to debate the great issues raised by Part IV of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, this debate represents a great divide. On the other hand the Government with their reluctant supporters, and I believe that they are reluctant, are fast moving towards a controlled, siege economy. This is a direction in which we on this side of the House cannot agree to follow. We do not think that the First Secretary wants to be a dictator, but he has taken dictatorial powers, and once a Government start on that slippery slope we want to know where they will get to if their present policy fails.
We see the right hon. Gentleman as a meddler and a muddler. Part II and Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Bill increase his powers to meddle and muddle. The heart of the debate is that the House should have the chance, in one form or another, to discuss all of the great issues raised by this legislation. By common agreement between the Prime Minister, the First Secretary and hon. Members on all sides, this is an almost uniquely important Bill, in its new form, with Part IV added.
I have referred to a number of issues which hon. Members might have wished, with different approaches and different solutions, to have raised—how we reached the crisis, what should be done, the questions, the confusions, and the contradictions that we find in Government proposals and the consequences of Government policy.
I must now turn to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. It is to him that we look to give us, for the first time, a coherent and clear answer as to why the Government have denied the House the opportunity to discuss the principles of the Prices and Incomes Bill, as amended by Part IV. We shall be desperately disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman if we are given an evasive answer. We want a straight answer from him. If the right hon. Gentleman has to admit that perhaps he and his colleagues made a misjudgment, made a mistake, we think enough of him to expect him to confess this, and not to shirk the issue.
Hon. Members on all sides are genuinely disturbed that they have been deprived of the right to canvass these great themes, and the House would find it more acceptable to hear such a confession from the right hon. Gentleman than to be given a completely evasive answer. The right hon. Gentleman has great responsibilities. We shall listen to him with intense House of Commons and national concern.

9.28 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): The Motion in front of us tonight is a narrow one, but like everyone else I am delighted that debate has gone rather wider, because it has enabled us to adduce arguments for and against the decision taken by the Government in introducing these new Clauses during the Committee stage of the Bill


upstairs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), in an intervention during a speech of one of my hon. Friends, pointed out that it would not have been in order to table a Motion suggesting that this Prices and Incomes Bill should go back to the Floor for a Second Reading. That is the reason for the arguments tonight on both sides of the House.

The Motion seeks to bring the Bill to the Floor of the House for a completely new Committee stage, not simply for consideration of Part IV. A decision was taken in the House on 14th July, in a Division with a majority of 91 against, that this Bill should, as is the case with most Bills, be taken in Committee upstairs. The Opposition's main argument is that the inclusion of the new Clauses, leaving aside entirely for the moment the question of their importance, materially alters the Bill and that the Clauses should not have been tabled in Committee without a Second Reading discussion.

In addition, the point has been made on several occasions today and in exchanges earlier in the House that the new Clauses should not be included because they are not in order within the scope of the Bill. The Leader of the Opposition made this point absolutely clear when he said that this was a matter entirely for the Chairman of the Committee, as indeed it is. As has been said, the Chairman of the Committee acts with his advisers, and he has ruled that the new Part of the Bill is within the scope of the Bill.

Therefore, what is suggested? Is it suggested that by introducing Amendments in Committee, albeit major Amendments, the Government are doing something out of order, something contrary to what has been done before? If so, that is not the case. As every hon. Member who has been here long enough will appreciate and understand at once, there are precedents for major Amendments to Bills being introduced during the Committee stage.

Some of my hon. Friends and the Opposition have repeatedly made the point that these new Clauses should have been brought to the Floor of the House for a Second Reading type of debate. But, as I have said, the inclusion of the new Clauses is in order. There is no

break with precedent in adding them to the Bill in this way. The reason for doing it, therefore, is that it is the normal practice to introduce major Amendments of this kind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that there is nothing improper in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It has been suggested that it is completely without precedent. If hon. Members wish, I can read out a number of precedents concerning extremely important Bills, in particular one in 1958 when Part II of a Bill was rewritten completely, altering terms of compensation. It had never been discussed before on the Floor of the House and was considered, as will happen with this Bill, only on Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Hooson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Chairman of the Standing Committee who last night described these Clauses as being of a unique character?

Mr. Bowden: Whether they are of a unique character or not—I have already said that they are of an important character—they are in order and there is nothing wrong with the procedure.
One argument which we have heard today is that, because the Amendments to the Bill were introduced in Committee, many Members will be excluded from debating their provisions. Every hon. Member knows that if they had been before the House on Second Reading the majority of Members would have been excluded from debating them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why have a Second Reading?"] I do not know whether the House is suggesting that on every Second Reading, of any Bill, whichever Government are in power, everyone who wishes to speak should be allowed to do so.
It has been suggested that the action we have taken is undemocratic. That word has been used this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—that it is undemocratic to make any sizeable Amendments in Committee. Well, where are we getting to if we begin arguments in this direction? The fact that a certain number of Members are excluded, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee upstairs, is general and usual.
If we were to accept some of the arguments we have heard this afternoon, that would imply that no Bill should go upstairs but that every Bill should be


taken on the Floor of the House.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I have been here the whole day—many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have not—and I have heard the debate. The argument is completely invalid. It is quite a commonplace of debate these days, and one hears the argument, one heard it again and again today, that there should be taken upstairs certain Bills which occupy a great deal of time on the Floor of the House.
I am thinking particularly of the Finance Bill. This argument occurs regularly, whichever Government are in power. Is anyone in the House arguing that the Finance Bill is not important? [HON. MEMBERS: "We are not discussing the Finance Bill."] Exactly. This is the whole point. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who use this argument wish to use it for one particular Bill which they do not particularly like.
What the Government have done is to use the Standing Orders and procedures of this House correctly and accurately. They have not been engaged, as has been suggested this afternoon, in any form of sharp practice whatsoever. For those who have listened to the debate this afternoon—and at times the House was pretty thin—it is obvious that in fact all the new Clauses have now been debated in principle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, and almost every speech since then, and almost every one of the Clauses has been mentioned now in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), and the point was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), said that in fact the provisions of those Amendments have not been discussed on Second Reading, but in fact the same speeches have been made this afternoon on this Motion which would have been made——

Sir L. Heald: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Chair has allowed inadmissible speeches?

Mr. Speaker: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to score a debating point, and not to make a point of order.

Mr. Bowden: Every Member of the House knows perfectly well that on completion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Bill will come back here for Report and Third Reading, and here again only those people who catch Mr. Speaker's eye will be called in the debate and will debate the provisions of those new Clauses.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Shut the place up, then.

Mr. Bowden: This Motion today and all the procedural devices of this kind are quite a normal tactic of any Opposition. On this occasion, I think that the position is rather different. The Opposition should weigh up and measure carefully whether it is responsible of them to adopt this device in the light of the country's economic difficulties. The House and the public at large will judge whether, in these circumstances, the methods which the Opposition have tried to adopt are justifiable in the context of the economic situation. If the conclusion is that they are not justifiable, the Opposition have much to answer for.
May I repeat what I said just now? No action which the Government have taken on these new Amendments to the Prices and Incomes Bill is in any way an infringement of the rules and Standing Orders of the House.
One wonders if the motive underlying the Motion which we are now debating was to enable the Opposition to have a further economic debate. In my opening words, I said that I was glad that it had been a wide debate. If that was their motive, it is only fair to remember that we have recently had an economic debate over a period of two whole days, when the proposal for a wages standstill was debated at length. It is noticeable that the Opposition had very little constructive to say during that debate about methods of handling the economic situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) suggested in the course of his speech that it had been implied that there was some pressure from the United States Government on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate statutory action to enforce the prices and incomes policy, and he asked me to comment on that. My comment is that the implication is quite untrue. Our sole reason for urging on the Bill and our


desire to obtain the Royal Assent before the Summer Recess is in the interests of the country's economy.

Sir Cyril Osborne: The right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins), in his letter of resignation to the Prime Minister, said that this pressure was being exercised by an outside Government. In reply to that letter, the Prime Minister never denied that charge. Can we be told whether the right hon. Member for Nuneaton was speaking the truth?

Mr. Bowden: I am sure that the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) does not expect me to be responsible for statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) or by any other hon. Member.
Much has been said on procedural matters, and comments have been made about party strengths. Very little has been said about the economic context within which the Government have brought forward the Prices and Incomes Bill and these major Amendments which are the main cause of our discussion and which are now being moved in Committee upstairs.
It has been the basic objective of the Government's policy since we took office to reduce the pressure of demand in order to free resources for export production, to damp down imports and, by providing an increased margin of spare capacity, to moderate the rise in costs and prices to the advantage of our competitive position. That has been our objective, but, as the House knows, the major economic difficulties of the past few weeks have supervened and the Government have decided to take a number of drastic steps. [Laughter.] I do not think that the people outside this House will regard this as funny when they appreciate what hon. Gentlemen are laughing at. The drastic steps which we have had to take were announced by my right hon. Friend on 20th July, and the new provisions in the Prices and Incomes Bill represent only one of the steps which we are taking to right the economy of the country.
Many hon. Members have implied, and some have explicitly stated, that the Government are forcing the amended Bill through either for some party advantage—Heaven knows what it can be, but this has been suggested—or merely to ensure

that the House can rise at the end of next week. I think that every responsible hon. Member must realise that the urgency arises not from any of those causes but purely because of the economic situation.
Members who may attempt, by any means, to delay the passage of the Bill—and I mean delay it rather than adequately discuss it—should recognise that they are not winning a party political point but are trying to annul a provision to which the Government attach the greatest importance in their fight against our economic problems. It is economic necessity which has caused the Government to take this action, and to take it before the Summer Recess.
We recognise, and I think that the House recognises, the fears of some people about this standstill. This is a serious situation. There are the fears of the lower paid workers that their standards will not improve. There are the fears of the small business man and shopkeeper who feel that their profit margins are too low. These are real fears, but the proposed standstill simply holds their position for a while. It does not worsen it. It is not a 10 per cent. cut such as we have previously experienced in this country.
Without the standstill, and without the deflationary measures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken, the fears of all the people could very well be realised. The national exercise is in defence of sterling so that the countries of the world will realise that our currency is strong. This, and this alone, can give these people who have genuine fears the security that they need, and which they deserve.
As my right hon. Friend the First Secretary said, it is the Government's hope and desire that it will not be necessary to introduce the statutory provisions of the Bill, and that voluntary action will suffice. That is our hope, but, should it not prove to be so, the necessary Orders in Council provided for under the Bill will have to be laid, and I remind the House again that these Orders require the approval of both Houses of Parliament within 28 days. I think that we should regard the statutory provisions in the Bill as a back-stop in case the voluntary system fails to work.

Sir K. Joseph: Are they calendar days or Parliamentary days?

Mr. Bowden: Calendar days.

Sir K. Joseph: Which is the answer? We have had two different answers from the Front Bench. Parliamentary or calendar?

Mr. Bowden: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Bill, he will see that it clearly says 28 days. My reading of the position is that if the Order were made, say, on 5th September, the House would have to approve it within 28 days from then, whether the House was in recess or not—calendar days. That is the position——

Sir K. Joseph: We should have to come back?

Mr. Bowden: That is right. We should have to come back.
On one or two occasions in the debate, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has been referred to as "an economic dictator". How anyone could refer to a man as benign as my right hon. Friend as an economic dictator I do not know. For a dictator, he is an unusual type of dictator, who within a period—[Interruption.]—let me complete my sentence—who, within a period of six months, partly destroys himself and within another—[Interruption.] Perhaps, for the benefit of the majority of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have not read the Bill, I would say that the position is that the statutory provisions fall at the end of 12 months.
Although the Motion is a procedural one and these things are important, they are not generally understood outside Parliament—[An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, they are."] They are not. Let us be reasonable and fair about this. If the average man and woman in the street were asked what the Motion means, they would be unable to say. However, despite the lack of detailed knowledge outside of the procedure of the House, I believe that there is a great awareness in the country of our economic difficulties and the action which the Government are taking to deal with them and that the atmosphere is completely different from what it was in 1961–62. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The man in the street wants his wage packet to mean something. He is not

concerned with the number of Treasury notes in his pocket, but he is concerned with what they will buy. He knows that if a £1 increase in wages is matched almost at once by a £1 increase in the prices of the goods he wants to buy, he is no better off. This is what the man in the street understands, not the details of our procedures.
That is why he realises that, if the Government's action to stabilise our economy in defence of sterling makes it possible for the money in his wallet to retain its spending power, the job is worth while. Responsible bodies like the Confederation of British Industry and the T.U.C. and responsible people will accept this temporary standstill if it is seen to be fair. The T.U.C. decided yesterday, despite some reservations, to support the policy, and, since my right hon. Friend the First Secretary addressed the House, the Confederation of British Industry, with one reservation, has also said that it would do its best to make the policy work.
It is recognised generally that we cannot possibly continue for long to increase wages, salaries and prices and at the same time fail proportionately to increase production. A great deal is said about increasing production. We must instil—and this is a job for us all—into the minds of everyone who is capable of doing a job that increased production, and only increased production can get us over this hurdle.
The Bill is indeed tough. There is no doubt about that. Some anomalies will arise, and there is no doubt about that, too. But a standstill, either voluntary or resulting from statutory action, if we have to take it, will give this country time to reflect and rearm—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rearm?".] I forgot for a moment that "rearm" is a word which, perhaps, I should not use—to regear ourselves to tackle the vital problems affecting our balance of payments. Given the support of the country we should, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said more than once, be in balance in 1967 and get the economy on an even keel. [HON. MEMBERS: "1966".] No, 1967. [Laughter.] I do not find this a matter for humour. Nor does the nation.
We will regard this standstill not as a clamping down but as a launching pad—


[Interruption.]—from which to tackle our economic problems. If we do this we can get Britain out of the red and, despite the laughs, jokes and jeers of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I know that the majority of them feel that we should make every possible effort to obtain just that. Only by getting Britain into balance will the wage packet of the man-in-the-street have any real meaning.
Last Saturday there was a great deal of interest in the country in a sporting event, and we have a lesson to learn from it.

Mr. Bernard Weatherill: Extra time.

Mr. Bowden: I was not going to mention the World Cup—[Interruption.]— but perhaps I should, simply by reminding hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are behaving rather like the Argentinians did. This standstill is temporary and, given the will and support of the people, even of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it can succeed in attaining complete economic stability.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 277.

Division No. 156.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fortescue, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Foster, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Astor, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n M'd'n)
Gibson-Watt, David
Longden, Gilbert


Awdry, Daniel
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Loveys, W. H.


Baker, W. H. K.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lubbock, Eric


Balniel, Lord
Glover, Sir Douglas
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Batsford, Brian
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
MacArthur, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhart, Philip
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley


Bessell, Peter
Cower, Raymond
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Biffen, John
Grant, Anthony
Maddan, Martin


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maginnis, John E.


Black, Sir Cyril
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil


Blaker, Peter
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mathew, Robert


Body, Richard
Gurden, Harold
Maude, Angus


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Braine, Bernard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Brewis, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Monro, Hector


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper


Bryan, Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hay, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Campbell, Gordon
Heseltine, Michael
Murton, Oscar


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, J. E. B.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Clark, Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Nott, John


Clegg, Walter
Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hooson, Emlyn
Orr, Capt. L. P. s.


Cordle, John
Hordern, Peter
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Corfield, F. V.
Hornby, Richard
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Crouch, David
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pardoe, John


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Currie, G. B. H.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peel, John


Dance, James
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Percival, Ian


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Jopling, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Doughty, Charles
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Prior, J. M. L.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kershaw, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Eden, Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Eyre, Reginald
Lambton, Viscount
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Farr, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridsdale, Julian


Fisher, Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)




Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Weatherill, Bernard


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Webster, David


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


St. John-stevas, Norman
Teeling, Sir William
Whitelaw, William


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Temple, John M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sharpies, Richard
Thorpe, Jeremy
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tilney, John
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Sinclair, Sir George
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


stainton, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woodnutt, Mark


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Worsley, Marcus


Stodart, Anthony
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wylie, N. R.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Younger, Hn. George


Summers, Sir Spencer
Walker, Peter (Worcester)



Talbot, John E.
Wait, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES::


Tapsell, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Francis Pym and




Mr. R. W. Elliott




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dell, Edmund
Hunter, Adam


Albu, Austen
Dewar, Donald
Hynd, John


Alldritt, Walter
Diamond, Rt. Hon. John
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Allen, Scholefield
Dobson, Ray
Janner, Sir Barnett


Anderson, Donald
Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Archer, Peter
Donnelly, Desmond
Jeger, George (Goole)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Ashley, Jack
Dunnett, Jack
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Baxter, William
English, Michael
Jones, J. Idwat (Wrexham)


Beaney, Alan
Ennals, David
Judd, Frank


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Ensor, David
Kelley, Richard


Bence, Cyril
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Kenyon, Clifford


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, James (G'gow &amp; Bridgeton)
Faulds, Andrew
Ledger, Ron


Binns, John
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Bishop, E. S.
Finch, Harold
Lestor, Miss Joan


Blackburn, F.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boardman, H.
Floud, Bernard
Lomas, Kenneth


Boston, Terence
Foley, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Luard, Evan


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Ford, Ben
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Boyden, James
Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fowler, Garry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McBride, Neil


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
McCann, John


Brooks, Edwin
Freeson, Reginald
MacColl, James


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gardner, A. J.
MacDermot, Niall


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cat-row, Alex
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackie, John


Buchan, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maclennan, Robert


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gregory, Aronld
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Coe, Denis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mapp, Charles


Concannon, J. D.
Hamling, William
Marquand, David


Conlan, Bernard
Hannan, William
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Harper, Joseph
Mason, Roy


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mayhew, Christopher


Crawshaw, Richard
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mellish, Robert


Cronin, John
Haseldine, Norman
Millan, Bruce


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hattersley, Roy
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hazell, Bert
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molloy, William


Dalyell, Tam
Henig, Stanley
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Murray, Albert


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Neal, Harold


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howie, W.
Norwood, Christopher


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Hoy, James
Oakes, Gordon


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric







O'Malley, Brian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Varley, Eric G.


Oram, Albert E.
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Orbach, Maurice
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oswald, Thomas
Ryan, John
Wallace, George


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Weitzman, David


Palmer, Arthur
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Wellbeloved, James


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Whitaker, Ben


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitlock, William


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Pentland, Norman
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Slater, Joseph
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Small, William
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Snow, Julian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Price, William (Rugby)
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Probert, Arthur
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rankin, John
Storehouse, John
Winnick, David


Redhead, Edward
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Winterbottom, R. E.


Rees, Merlyn
Swingler, Stephen
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Symonds, J. B.
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taverne, Dick
Wyatt, Woodrow


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Yates, Victor


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Thornton, Ernest



Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tomney, Frank
Mr. Charles Grey and


Roebuck, Roy
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. George Lawson.


Rose, Paul
Urwin, T. W.

Mr. Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of this very large demonstration by the House—[Interruption].

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order.

Mr. Heath: —and the fact that the Government have lost a considerable amount of support——

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Heath: —may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will take this opportunity now of reconsidering his position——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Heath: —and bringing Part IV of the Bill down to the Floor of the House?

An Hon. Member: You poor fish.

Mr. Speaker: This is a point for the Leader of the House and not for Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Bowden: The answer is, No, Sir, The House has just taken a decision.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We all ought to be thinking a little about the dignity of Parliament.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Singapore Bill [Lords] and on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Building Control Bill and the Docks and Harbours Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Orders of the Day — SINGAPORE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

10.13 p.m.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart): The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart) rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will Members who wish to leave, please do so quietly?

10.15 p.m.

Mrs. Hart: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time. This is a short Bill which has been made necessary by the secession of Singapore from Malaysia last August. It is not a Bill to provide for the independence of Singapore, but is aimed merely at amending various British enactments affected by the advent of a new republic within the Commonwealth.
Singapore became a separate British Colony in 1946 after over a century as one of the Straits Settlements. In 1958 the State of Singapore Act was passed in this Parliament, giving Singapore full self-government but leaving responsibility for defence and external affairs with Britain.
Five years later, after a referendum of its citizens, Singapore joined with the Federation of Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo to form the new Federation of Malaysia. The change in Singapore's status from partially dependent State to membership of the new Federation was effected by the Malaysia Act passed in July 1963, and by an Order in Council a month later. By virtue of this new legislation Britain relinquished all sovereignty over Singapore and from that time the British Parliament had no further responsibility for any subsequent constitutional changes affecting the state.
In 1965 the Malaysian Federal Government and the Singapore State Government came to the conclusion that the differences between them were such that their constitutional association should be discontinued, and they agreed to separate. That decision was a disappointment to the friends of both countries, but it was entirely one for them to take.
The secession was effected by legislation in the Malaysian Parliament which

provided that Singapore should become an independent State on the 9th August, 1965. Subsequently, Singapore applied for, and was readily given, Commonwealth membership and constituted herself a Republic with a President and Parliamentary system of government.
Although no legislative action was needed by this Parliament to effect the separation, there are a number of British enactments relating to the former Commonwealth countries and former dependent territories which now need amendment. Until now, Singapore has been covered by the provisions in them for Malaysia, but now that she is no longer part of Malaysia it is necessary to provide in British law accordingly—hence this Bill.
There is no need to obtain the new Republic's agreement to the Bill since only British law is involved. However, the House will wish to know that the Singapore Government are aware of the Bill and are, where appropriate, dovetailing their own legislation with it, for example in relation to appeals to the Judicial Committee.
I wish now to say something about the delay which may seem to have occurred between the establishment of Singapore as an independent State and the passage of the Bill. The advent of the new State of Singapore was without warning. Normally, new membership of the Commonwealth comes about only after a period of negotiation and that gives the opportunity for all the necessary legislation to be prepared.
But we could only begin to consider drafting the legislation for Singapore after the event. Moreover, it has obviously been very desirable to await the passage of Singapore's own legislation. Here, too, the drafting could not begin until after separation, and it was not until the end of December last year that her first constitutional enactments were passed.
It might also be asked what the position has been since secession and before the Bill goes on to the Statute Book, because of the delay. Consistent with our powers, in this interim period, we have treated Singapore as an independent Commonwealth country. This has been administratively possible over a certain field for a limited time.
However, it is clearly unsatisfactory, even within that limited field, that this situation should continue, and it is essential that the legal position should be clearly defined and enacted.
That is the background of the Bill. I am sure that the House will be anxious to speed it on its way.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: For the fourth time within a fortnight, we have a Bill of not inconsiderable importance coming up for discussion in the now regular nocturnal extension to the Parliamentary day. To say the least, this seems to be a highly unsatisfactory way to arrange Parliamentary business. But the unsatisfactory arrangement of Parliamentary business has been the subject of our main debate today, and the country is now aware of the administrative mess into which the Government have plunged not only the House of Commons but also another place. Even without the Parliamentary forced march which the Government are now imposing upon us, it had been obvious ever since the election that the Parliamentary time-table in the late summer would be seriously congested. This gives a great deal of point to the question which the hon. Lady mentioned but did not satisfactorily answer, the question asked in another place by my noble Friend Lord Bessborough—Why has the Bill taken nearly a year to appear?
We agree with the hon. Lady—no one could disagree—that the events of last August in Malaya and Singapore were not foreseen. I make no criticism of that, but it is still very hard to understand, even after the hon. Lady's explanation, why the Government needed the whole winter, the spring and most of the summer before producing a Bill which makes, in the words of the Under-Secretary of State the noble Lord, Lord Beswick,
a number of consequential detailed changes … in those parts of British law which relate to Singapore and the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th July 1966; Vol. 276, c. 328.]
It seems a very long time, ten months, for the incorporation of these consequential changes in a five-page Bill, and the result is to throw the Bill at the House of Commons when its business was

always certain to be dangerously congested.
Like the hon. Lady and many others, I was disappointed by the events of last summer which led to the secession by Singapore from the Federation. It is certainly not for me or for any of us to criticise, or, perhaps, even to try to analyse the causes of the divorce. As the hon. Lady rightly said, this was a matter for the Governments of Malaya and Singapore. But perhaps I may be allowed to express the very sincere hope that the divorce may not last for ever and that a remarriage of these two sovereign States may one day take place. Recent events seem to make that hope rather less unrealistic than it appeared to be in the weeks and months immediately following secession.
I do not know, but I think that I should probably be out of order in a debate on this Bill in discussing the whole future of British and allied strategy in the Eastern hemisphere, but there is one aspect of it which is closely connected with the secession of Singapore and which deeply concerns us all. According to the legislation which covered the separation of Singapore, the Government of Singapore
will permit the Government of the United Kingdom to make such use of this base and facilities, as that Government "—
that is, the Government of Singapore—
may consider necessary for the purpose of assisting in the defence of Singapore and Malaysia and for Commonwealth defence, and for the preservation of peace in South-East Asia.
We know from the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State in answer to a Question last October that a statement about the future of the base had then to await
further progress with the Defence Review … and detailed discussions with Singapore and our other allies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28 Oct 1965; Vol. 718, c. 350.]
We know something of the views of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew about the base, but we know extremely little about the answers to three important questions which I shall now put to the hon. Lady and which, no doubt, my hon. Friends will reinforce in their own words.
First, are we right now in expecting a renegotiated agreement with Singapore, and, if so, when will that renegotiated agreement be complete? Second, is


there absolutely no room for doubt that Britain has the power to use the Singapore base for operations outside Malaysia, as was possible under the old agreement reached three years ago with the Federation? Third, has this right of Great Britain to use its forces in that way been clearly accepted by the Singapore Government?
In another place, the Under-Secretary of State shed the light of a glowworm on these problems. I regard this as the most important aspect of the Bill, and I press the hon. Lady for a brighter light and perfectly clear answers to these three questions.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: This is indeed a short Bill. It deals with some of the enactments to which my hon. Friend has referred, but a notable omission, which I regret, is a reference to any of the enactments dealing with the employment of staff in Singapore. I am disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken in the Bill to look into the question of compensation for the staff employed in Singapore under the Superannuation Acts and the Abolition of Offices Regulations current there.
There are about 30,000 locally enlisted civilian employees in Singapore employed by the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Public Building and Works. Abount 1,000 of them are employed on established terms and about 29,000 are unestablished. These establishment terms were originally set out in 1953, under a previous Government, and it was said at the time that they would be reviewed after three years. Unfortunately, nothing has been done. They were never reviewed, and that has created a considerable amount of dissatisfaction among local civilians employed in Singapore. They have, through their unions, approached the High Commissioner, and in every case they have been told that the matter was referred to Her Majesty's Government and that a reply was awaited. No reply has been received, and no satisfaction has been given.
There are two main problems. The first is the question of pensions and retirement provisions. These are inferior to those of independent civil servants employed by the Singapore Government.

It surely is a bad thing that civilians who are really employees of the British Government through departments set up in Singapore should be employed on inferior terms to civilian employees of the independent Singapore Government.
Furthermore, the future of employees of our Government is very insecure. They feel that when the time comes for the withdrawal of the British Government they will be tainted by the fact that they have been employed by Britain and that their prospects of employment, either commercially or under the independent Singapore Government, will be very slight. Consequently, they ask that these inferior conditions of compensation and pensions should be reviewed and at least brought up to the level of the employees of the Singapore Government.
It is ironic that the better conditions under which the Singapore Government employ their own staff were introduced by the British Colonial Government and adopted by Singapore, and that we ourselves have inferior terms for our own employees. The unions, which have organised their workers and attempted to instil discipline into them and organised them into a competent, efficient, satisfactory and reliable labour force, are disgruntled at the treatment they have received from consecutive Governments over their complaints. I appeal to my hon. Friend to consider whether this cannot be settled speedily in this Bill or when another Bill dealing with Singapore is brought before us, so that we do not leave a legacy of grievance, ill will and unsettlement in Singapore.

10.30 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) that this is a shocking time of night to discuss this or any other Bill. But it cannot be said that the fault lies with the Opposition. At this hour there is only one small point I wish to raise, relating to paragraph 3 of the Schedule, where reference is made to the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933. Section 4(3) of the Act states:
Whilst a member of another force"—
that is to say, under this Bill, the Singapore forces—
is by virtue of this section attached temporarily to a home force"—


meaning the United Kingdom force—
he shall be subject … 
to Service law
… and shall be treated and shall have the like powers of command and punishment over members of the home force … as if he were a member of that force of relative rank;".
It might be said that this situation is theoretical and not likely to arise in Singapore, at least not very often. Nevertheless, at face value, it seems that, by the wording of the 1933 Act, which was passed in the very different context of the Statute of Westminster and when the Commonwealth was very different from now, United Kingdom troops could be put under the command for all purposes, including punishment, of Singapore officers or non-commissioned officers.
Of course, I have nothing against the Singapore services. Many Singapore citizens in the armed forces of Malaysia have worked very well with British forces. For example, a great mutual respect has sprung up during the naval patrols round the island which have protected it during the years of confrontation.
But, in the nature of things, the Singapore forces, separated as they will be from the Malaysian forces, will have to be reorganised and greatly expanded. There will be dilution and Singapore personnel with relatively little experience will obviously be given rank and positions in the Singapore forces. No doubt they will do well but surely no one will suggest that they should now be given command and powers of punishment over United Kingdom forces. I do not suggest the Government intend this situation to arise but I think that the drafting has gone wrong. As I read it, that is the position which would arise.
If confrontation is not ended—and we have no certainty that it will be—and if subversion goes on, as it is certain to do, it seems likely that British armed forces will have to help Singapore for a considerable time. I ask the hon. Lady to look at the wording of the 1933 Act and see whether some alteration is required to avoid bringing about a situation which I am sure the Government do not intend.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: On behalf of the Liberal Party, I add my welcome to the graduation of Singapore to independence. I am looking

forward to visiting there as a member of the Parliamentary delegation in the autumn and, incidentally, revisiting a part of the world with which I first made acquaintance in 1945.
While we may regret the secession of Singapore from the Malaysian Federation, we hope that future years will bring a growing together rather than a growing apart of the two countries. Perhaps we may eventually see them together again in federation.
I also look forward to the day when this country is able, with impunity, to withdraw her forces from Singapore, and Singapore can thrive in a peaceful atmosphere. We believe that the security and interests of Singapore and our obligations under the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty can be fulfilled just as well by British forces operating from base and with servicing facilities on the North Australian territory.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. John Peel: As one who attempted to serve Singapore during many happy years and also as one who has spent some less happy years in Singapore, during the war, I would not like this opportunity to pass without welcoming her very warmly to the Commonwealth. This occasion should not pass without someone remarking that Singapore is one of the greatest monuments to the British imperial story.
Singapore was fundamentally entirely a British creation. Her history begins when Sir Stamford Raffles landed on that swampy, steamy island in the early years of the 19th century and found only a handful of Malay fishermen. Within a short period it became a great free port, the gateway to the Far East, prosperous and with a very happy community. All of this can be attributed to the British genius for colonial rule. We should not be ashamed of our history there. Over the years many very poor Chinese, escaping from the unbearable conditions in their own country, came to Singapore.
Today the majority of the population are Chinese, but there are plenty of Malays, Indians and other peoples who live there. It was, however, the Chinese, who came from the hardships in their own country and found under British peace and justice—where there were no barriers to the exercise of their own particular


genius for hard work and commercial thrift—who were able to make and add to the great wealth of Singapore
As the years went by the wealth of Singapore was owned principally by the Chinese, but I am quite certain that they would have been the first to say that they owed it to the efficient administration of British justice. Then there were the tragic war years and the occupation by the Japanese, and after that once again the energetic people of Singapore turned to the pursuits of peace and prosperity. It was as a great port and outlet for the trade and the products of the Malayan Peninsula, as well as being an entrepreneur for trade between east and west that Singapore owed her prosperity.
It is only in close association with the Malayan Peninsula that she will maintain it. I was never one to agree with the decision of the British Government, in 1946 to split Singapore from Malaya. It was one of two, I think, very serious mistakes made by the British Government at the time, and we reaped a great deal of trouble from them That is now water under the bridge. However, I was delighted when, eventually, Singapore and Malaysia were brought together again. It seemed to me to be a great victory for common sense, so I cannot really feel that the present situation is by any means ideal. It is almost as bad as severing the Isle of Wight from Britain, because Singapore is just as close to the mainland of Malaya, and the people of Singapore have a great many cose connections with the people of Malaya.
The future peace and prosperity of Malaya depend fundamentally upon the cohesion and harmony of its multiracial society, and Singapore is part of it, economically, politically, and very much from the defence point of view. There can be no doubt that there are serious risks, and the seeds of danger are there so long as a natural entity is divided. So I must hope that, one day and before very long, the peoples of Malaysia and Singapore will see that their future must hang together very closely.
In the meantime, I hope that so long as the people of Singapore want our help and protection we shall give it. Our military base is a very important contribution to Singapore's economy. It

provides about a quarter of the gross national product and gives employment to about 150,000 people out of a population of two million. It is a great contribution to the stability and prosperity of that part of South-East Asia, and I very much hope that the peoples of that part of the world—because it is both a Commonwealth and a British interest—will realise that their future depends upon the closest possible association.
Having said that, I would just like to wish the people of Singapore the very best of good luck in the future.

10.47 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I would like, first, to emphasise the point raised by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger). I have raised it on more than one occasion in the House. It is of paramount importance that something is done for these people before this Bill becomes an Act. If it does not happen, we shall probably cause them difficulties, as we have done elsewhere on other occasions when we have left without making a settlement. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give us some definite assurance that these people, who have served us extremely well in the past and continue to serve their own island now, will be given some satisfactory conditions before we finally hand over Singapore to its new constitution.
When the Bill was discussed in another place, the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State was asked about the consultations with the Singapore Government which the hon. Lady has mention. He replied:
It would be wrong to say that they were consulted at all stages. They were informed of what we were doing, and to certain of the provisions it was necessary to get their agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th July, 1966; Vol. 276, c. 342.]
Surely it would be very unfortunate if we did not get their agreement on all these matters. I should like the hon. Lady to tell us, when she comes to reply, whether there are any outstanding disagreements, and if the Singapore Government have been consulted fully on all points and that they are now in agreement. Should we pass this Bill tonight and it becomes an Act, what will happen if they are not in entire agreement?
I would like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) in what he said about this remarkable island. As the hon. Lady knows, I have worked in the territory, and went in with the Red Cross in 1945 at the time that the Japanese gave up their occupation. The island is 27 miles long and 14 miles wide, and it will be difficult to support a population which is at the moment over 7,907 to the square mile. As my hon. Friend mentioned, it is a mixed population, and we are glad to know that the people live in great harmony. However, with the division now, as a great many of them have relations in Malaya itself, I hope this will help the harmony between the two territories. I want to mention that presently when dealing with defence.
As the Minister of State knows, the Island is extremely vulnerable, with its vast population and very few minerals or other resources and being dependent mostly upon commerce and having the free port and a certain number of manufactures and factories but in particular, at the present time, on the British services. I hope, therefore, that in view of the vulnerability of the island—Malaya, in fact, could cut off its water over the Straits at any moment—before we pass the Bill discussions will be held with Malaya to ascertain what agreements are being made to safeguard the island for the future.
I agree also with my hon. Friend that it was a great mistake to have what, I think, was called the MacMichael Agreement in 1946, for separate Colony status. This was the time to bring the territories together. Twelve years later, when the State of Singapore was created, I took part in the debate in this House, when we hoped that the creation of the State would be a stepping stone for future federation.
In the Long Title of the Bill on that occasion, one of the objects was stated to be the establishment of peace, order and good government. I am very sorry that the Long Title of tonight's Bill does not contain a similar statement. In the 1958 debate, the possibility of federation was considered, and now we come to the present Bill and, regrettably, we have to admit that federation has not worked.
In 1961 I happened to be an observer at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association regional conference in Singapore when the whole matter was discussed. I did not think that we would come to today's Bill because at that time a working party of Members of Parliament of four of the territories concerned was set up and had full opportunity to discuss the matter with the various territories which they visited. As the Minister of State will know, this went on for two years before federation was decided upon.
In 1963 the then Government of Singapore, before joining Malaysia, held a referendum and it was agreed by the population of Singapore to join Malaysia. I regret very much that similar action was not taken on this occasion: I have a feeling—and I was there last autumn—that had this been done, we would probably still have Singapore in the Federation.
I understand from what the hon. Lady has said that there is to be a republican constitution, but, as far as I can see, there is no mention of this in the Long Title or elsewhere in the Bill, as there usually is on such occasions. Does this mean that the Prime Minister will become a President and that the office of Head of State will be abolished? As the hon. Lady knows, Singapore at present has a Prime Minister and Head of State, who acts as the Agong does in Malaya as Head of State. I would like to know what is to be his position in the future.
Before we pass the Bill, we are entitled to know whether there is to be any defence agreement. In the House of Commons we have been talking hopefully recently about the end of confrontation, but President Soekarno does not seem to be quite in agreement with this happy achievement. I believe that the Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew—to whom I pay tribute for his great statesmanship and the fact that he has done a great deal for the Island during his premiership—has been in London in April to renegotiate the defence treaty. Since the territory is no longer in Malaysia, what, if any, other agreements have been made? If the island is to be independent, it must have some form of defence against outside attack, to which it is vulnerable. There is also the question of internal security.
There are two difficulties over defence. First of all, thousands of the inhabitants rely for their living on the Services. There are 18,000 approximately employees in the Royal Naval Dockyard alone. If we are to pull out our forcees in any numbers, I hope that, despite the Bill being an Act, provision will be made for some other employment for these people. Perhaps we could give some aid through the C.D.C. or help in the building of factories, for otherwise, the vast population will find difficulty in earning their living.
This applies also to the many commercial undertakings. Shopkeepers, especially dressmakers and others, have founded their livelihood on the Services.
I understand that Singapore seceded without warning the British Government or Malaysia. I know from my last visit that relations between the two countries are still not happy.
When the Federation was formed, the Singapore forces became one with the Malaysian forces, and this applied especially to the Royal Malaysian Navy. If there is any difficulty between the two countries, unless there is any further agreement, the Services will be in a difficult position, particularly as intermarriage, with one coming both from Singapore and from Malaysia, would mean that relations would have to fight each other.
Has any agreement been reached in Malaysia about who is to command its forces? I want an assurance that if British troops remain there they will not be used in any dispute between Malaysia and Singapore. Should there be any trouble between the two, which we sincerely hope there will not be, our troops might be involved in the protection of Singapore, which would make for difficulties.
I would like to praise the expatriates who have done so much for the territory in the past. Many of them suffered in Japanese prisons, but they went back immediately to help build up the State, and now the island is able to maintain itself, it is greatly due to the commercial community—in 1958 there were 20,000 of them—and I hope that these people will be given security so that they can continue to help maintain the prosperity of the country.
What aid are we giving to Singapore? A good deal was given to Malaysia and subdivided between the territories. Will any aid other than defence aid be allocated in future?
I hope very much that in due course these territories of the old Federation of Malaysia may find some other means of association. When I was in Singapore in the autumn I found rather a lot of pride among the people, particularly among the Singapore-born Chinese, in having their own independent island, and I was there shortly after 6th August.
I think that as time goes on it may be possible to have an association of the States concerned. I hope that in future we may get a bigger association. In other words, that Maphilindo, which has been discussed on many occasions, may become a reality as this would result in better security for all these states.
In the meanwhile, in wishing Singapore well in the future, I hope that friendship will grow, particularly with Malaya itself, and that the association with the two states of Sabah and Sarawak will continue, because this island is very small and vulnerable to be on its own, and in the present state of the world one needs what I call collective security to provide a real defence against the various evils which exist.
In wishing the island well, and in wishing my many friends in Singapore well in the future, I hope this will develop into a larger entity in the future, because I think that this will provide greater prosperity for the people in the area.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. As a Member for Liverpool and Merseyside, which has a considerable trade with Singapore, I, too, would like to wish Singapore well as the new addition to our great Commonwealth. We all have friends there. I have had the privilege of knowing the head of the Government, and other prominent figures, in that area, and I think that we in this country are lucky to have many people who have a feeling of good will towards Britain in positions of importance in Singapore.
I support the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) in his plea for some


of the civil servants. I have had a certain amount of correspondence with the Minister of State about those members of the Overseas Civil Service who, I believe, have had only one rise since the Overseas Civil Service came into being. I understand that this matter is being looked at, but the cost of living is rising year by year, and they feel that they have been left out on a limb and forgotten. I hope that the Minister will say something about this.
We all deplore the fact that Asia—and Africa, too, for that matter—is in danger of Balkanisation. The world needs larger areas of trade, and if one state is carved out of another there is a danger of tariff barriers being raised one against the other. This is not good for them, and it is not good for the world in general. I hope, therefore, that commonsense will prevail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) referred to the danger of the water supply being cut off. That could also apply to Hong Kong, but the lesson of Hong Kong could be learned in Singapore. They have had confrontation. They have gone in for industry. They want to develop the trade and all the works and artifices of which they are capable. We wish them well, and we hope that the friendship between that small Island but great State will continue with this country for many years to come.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: As the Minister of State pointed out, this Measure is consequential on Singapore leaving Malaysia, and a common note of regret at this cession has run through all the speeches. We recognise, however, that this is wholly a matter for the people of Singapore and Malaysia, although we regret that history has turned out this way. We recognise, too, that certain political and economic dangers are bound to confront independent Singapore. For example, it is clear that during the period of confrontation, Singapore would have been untenable without the assistance of British troops. We should, therefore, pay tribute to our troops, not only for their activities in Singapore Island, but for their efforts, which caused many of them to lose their lives, in defending Singapore

from Borneo, several thousands of miles away.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) said, at a later date we may see a union or some form of loose federation of Indonesia with Malaysia, the Philippines and possibly with Thailand. This would be a good thing for the stability of that rather unstable part of the world. However, one is bound to wonder where Singapore will fit it. It is a very small island—of 224 square miles, with a population of 1,200,000 Chinese and 220,000 Malays. It has the added disadvantage of 50 per cent. of its population being under 21 years of age. Any Prime Minister of Singapore will have plenty of political problems on his plate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) pointed out, there are also many economic problems. Singapore is the port for Malaya and it is also one of the world's great entrepôt ports. There is sometimes a conflict of interests between these two activities; but at the same time it must be recognised that Singapore is essential to Malaya and Malaya is essential to Singapore.
On the economic side, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport pointed out, the British base in Singapore brings a great deal of revenue to the island and to its population. It has been estimated that about £50 million a year goes to the island in revenue from this source. Any running down or removal of the British base would, therefore, affect the island drastically, particularly from the economic point of view.
It is to be hoped that a remark attributed to the Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, in August of last year will come true, when he was reported as having said that he hoped and expected that Singapore and Malaya would be reunited on reasonable terms within a decade.
I turn to the most important part of this debate: the exact legal position of our troops and of the base in Singapore Island. The original position was wholly satisfactory. We had a defence agreement with Malaysia, which included Singapore, and the base was in Singapore. However, now that Singapore is no longer a part of Malaysia and as


there is no clear defence agreement with Singapore, this has become a most important matter as the present position appears to be both vague and contradictory. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) has made this clear in the questions he asked. I trust that the Minister of State will give us an answer at the end of this debate.
If I may briefly outline the position as I see it, Singapore became independent on 9th August of last year; in that same month the Prime Minister of Singapore was stated to have said in an interview that he could give Britain 24 hours' notice to quit the base. In the following month the Joint Singapore-Malaysia Defence Council decided that the status quo—the agreement with Malaya—would remain until new negotiations with Britain had been concluded probably at the end of the year. That was nearly a year ago. Also at that time the Singapore Minister of Defence was quoted as having said that if Britain pulled out of the base, it would be put up for international tender and he added that four foreign countries might be interested. In about the same period, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister, is described in the Observer of 5th September of last year as follows:
Mr. Lee is determined to keep Singapore neutrally free from the two great militant power blocs in Asia, the United States and Communist China.
The Observer went on:
He sees himself in Singapore as eventually standing Socialist and unaggressive, between East and West … in much the same stance as Nehru before China invaded India.
That may be excellent sentiment, but how does it fit in with a British base which has commitments not only to Malaysia and Singapore but to the Commonwealth and our allies in S.E.A.T.O.?
We on this side have raised the matter, on a number of occasions. We had a Parliamentary Answer from the First Secretary on 28th October. To paraphrase him, the right hon. Gentleman said, in column 351 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the original agreement with Malaysia would carry on for the present, and would give us the right of defending Singapore and Malaysia and its use for Commonwealth defence and the preservation of peace in South-East Asia. But I

understood at the time that this was an interim arrangement. Is this so? If it is so, does it clearly allow us to fulfill our S.E.A.T.O. obligations S.E.A.T.O. is not always popular in the minds of Singapore politicians.
In April of this year, the Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, visited London, and we were told in the Press that there would be negotiations over the future of the base, with an indication that Britain would be asked to modify her powers over the base. No statement was issued, and no information came from these negotiations. There was, however, a significant occurrence in Singapore at this time. Singapore walked out of the combined National Defence Council and the combined Operations Committee, which had been set up as an interim defence measure since the separation of the two countries
In June we had the Bangkok Agreement and, we hope, the ending of confrontation, and last month we had the Secretary of State for Defence visiting Kuala Lumpur and Singapore In Kuala Lumpur he apparently said that we would reduce our troops to pre-confrontation levels, and nobody can cavil at that. Today, in answer to a Question in the House, he said that a programme of withdrawal had been agreed with the Malaysia Government but we had no information about Singapore—only about Malaysia. The hon. Lady will therefore realise that we are concerned about this point.
In the debate on this Bill in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick said:
At the moment, the arrangements "——
that is, the defence arrangements:
so I am advised, are satisfactory to us, and until there is a new defence agreement …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th July, 1966; Vol. 276, c. 344.]
Is a new defence agreement in process of negotiation? If it is not, how long will the interim agreement last? We are still spending large sums of money. When I was in Singapore at Easter I saw a new barracks being built, so we are spending money there other than on the general maintenance of our forces. Are we satisfied that we have a firm security of tenure?
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East has reminded the House that a Briton first founded Singapore just under 150 years ago. From a


swamp, it became a major world city, and is now an independent State. We, in this country, have been closely connected with Singapore in war and in peace, and we hope that this association will long continue through our Commonwealth links—links with 24 independent nations.
I hope that I will not be exceeding the bounds of order if I refer in conclusion to the Colonial Office. It is now three days since that great office of State closed its doors for the last time, and we should pay a tribute in discussing this, the first Commonwealth Bill since then, to the Colonial Office, and to all who served in it and who, in their heyday, administered and looked after 500 million or 600 million people. They deserve well of this country and of the population of the Commonwealth.
A fitting tribute to the Commonwealth was paid by an American historian. I will quote it briefly:
Considering its scope the British Commonwealth of Nations is the most remarkable political achievement in history. It has overcome more tyranny, supplied more safety, removed more fear, taught more justice, and given more freedom to more people than any other institution on earth.
I would merely add that this was possible only because of the work of generations of devoted servants of the Colonial Office.

11.11 p.m.

Mrs. Hart: We are all grateful for the opportunity——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Lady must ask leave to speak again.

Mrs. Hart: I intended to do that at the outset, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I have the leave of the House to speak again in reply to some of the interesting points which have been raised? We are glad to have the opportunity the Bill has provided to have some discussion on the general issues surrounding Singapore at present. I will deal with the points one by one, but not in the order in which they were raised.
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about the extent of the consultation there has been with Singapore in the preparation of the Bill. This is a Bill to amend British law. We do not need to

consult Singapore or obtain her agreement, except in respect of, for example, appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In cases where it was necessary to get Singapore's agreement, there has been full consultation and there has been complete agreement from Singapore. The Singapore Government are putting through complementary legislation.
The hon. Lady also raised the question of aid. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development. Singapore has not so far sought aid on any large scale, either for defence or for civil development purposes. There are no questions of difficulty between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Singapore surrounding any point of aid.
I was asked also by the hon. Lady about the new Singapore Constitution. The new Constitution, which was passed by the Singapore Legislature, provides for a President and a Parliament. The leader of the majority party is the Prime Minister. It is, therefore, a Westminster-model republic, but with a separation between the head of State and the head of government. We have no indication that a change might be in the minds of the Government of Singapore, but it is a matter for them to develop their Constitution as they feel fit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) and the hon. Lady raised the question of the terms of service for local employees of the British Government. I know that this is a matter of very considerable concern to my hon. Friend, and clearly also to the hon. Lady. This is not a matter, I fear, which could be dealt with in the Bill. It is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of Public Building and Works. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Building and Works has heard everything that has been said tonight, will have listened very carefully, and will be in communication with my hon. Friend, who I know has been raising this question over the last month or two. I am only sorry that we are not able in the Bill to contribute anything to the discussion on that point.
A point was raised about Servicemen in Singapore and the Clause in the Bill affecting this question. This is a matter


for our own Service authorities. It is a question of whether or not they accept a Singapore officer for attachment. I am told that it is a perfectly usual provision for all Commonwealth forces. Indeed, a Clause like this has been included in the legislation for all the independence settlements in the last few years.
I turn to the general questions which have been raised about the defence agreements and about the general question of Singapore and the use of our Armed Forces there. Much of what has been said is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Nevertheless, I can give hon. Members some clarification on some of their questions. As I think the House has understood, there is at present no formal defence agreement between Singapore and this country. The Singapore Government undertook for their part to continue to carry out their previous obligations until the negotiation of a new agreement. Therefore, until the new agreement is negotiated we are in the same position as we were before the secession or Singapore, in that Singapore has undertaken all the obligations that then existed.
We have made it clear, and the Singapore Government know this, that we are now awaiting their proposals for a new agreement. The Singapore Government spokesmen have confirmed that they will continue to adhere to the previous arrangements under the Malaysia defence agreements in so far as they apply to Singapore.
It would be premature and wrong to consider any point that might arise as a result of the closure of the British base, because we intend to stay there as long as the Singapore Government are happy for us to do so. We have made clear that on bases of this kind we depend on the willingness of the country concerned to have us there. The Singapore Government have shown no signs of wanting us to go.
I think that it was the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport who asked about any possible use of British forces stationed in Singapore in the event of dispute between Singapore and Malaysia. The Malaysian and Singapore armed forces are commanded by their own nationals, and the new separate forces are in the process of being manned by

their own citizens. Relations between Malaysia and Singapore must clearly continue to be a question for themselves. We would seek to avoid becoming involved if differences arose. One hopes that they will not, and I do not think that we have any real need to think that they will. To that extent the hon. Lady's question concerned a hypothetical situation.
I am glad that such a welcome has been given to Singapore as a new, totally independent member of the Commonwealth. I am also glad that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) paid tribute to the Colonial Office. It has been a week of considerable changes for those who work in Commonwealth and Colonial relationships. On the very morning of the new arrangements we had our new notices up outside our offices. We are now the Commonwealth Office.
As we all know, there have been some serious implications of British colonialism for peoples all over the world. But, whatever may have been the politics and the difficulties and disputes to which British colonialism gave rise in the past, I am certain that the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that the colonial officers—particularly, I would say, at the grass-root levels—dealing with the people in Africa and Asia, have laid the foundation for whatever support and friendship Britain now has in the rest of the world.
I am certain that this is so, and the more I travel within the Commonwealth the more I am impressed by the extent of the real understanding and friendship that has been built up in so many parts of the world by ordinary people in comparatively humble positions in the Colonial Departments who have been giving so much of themselves for people in many different countries. It is right to separate that aspect of British colonialism from the politics of colonialism and to pay our tribute to the people in the Colonial Office who come under a new Departmental framework as from the beginning of this week.

Mr. Tilney: The hon. Lady has referred to those locally employed. Will she say something about negotiations on the salaries and cost of living of those seconded from this country in the Overseas Civil Service?

Mrs. Hart: Much of this is a question not for me but for others of my right hon. Friends, but I shall certainly look into the point and see that the hon. Gentleman has a clear statement of what the position is and is likely to be.
Whatever the occasion which gives rise to the Bill and the new situation in which Singapore finds itself, on which a good deal has been said in the debate, we have in Singapore a vital and lively new member of the Commonwealth. Singapore has a most distinguished Prime Minister, who is pioneering tremendous initiatives in home policy and in social reform. We all look forward to Singapore playing a full part as a new independent member of the Commonwealth and making a great contribution to the future of the Commonwealth. Certainly, the people of Singapore and their leadership seem to me to have tremendous potential in the contribution they can make.
Hon. Members have had detailed points to raise in the debate, but I gladly join with them in saying that the House, in welcoming the Bill, wishes to convey to Singapore and its people our very sincere good wishes for their future in whatever way they choose to shape it. It is for them now to shape their own future. We, as equal members with them in the Commonwealth, not only wish them well but look to them for the great contribution which we know that they can make.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUILDING CONTROL BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(PROHIBITION OF WORK EXCEPT UNDER LICENCE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 21, leave out from "that" to end of line 23 and insert:
at the time when the work was carried out he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that it was being carried out in contravention of this section or, as the case may be, of the terms of the licence.

11.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. James Boyden): I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This and the other two are drafting Amendments. We are most grateful to the other place for giving careful but quick attention to this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DOCKS AND HARBOURS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendments made.

Clause 13.—(COMPENSATION FOR REFUSAL, ETC., OF LICENCE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 30, after "expenditure" insert
other than payments of income tax (including surtax), capital gains tax or corporation tax.

11.25 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I want to ask one or two questions about this Amendment. Two questions in particular are relevant. If this Amendment is accepted what will be the position, in the case of a forced sale because a licence has been refused, of an employer who is thereby forced to pay Capital Gains Tax? It would seem to me to be rather unfair that an employer who goes out of business and therefore has to sell up might have to pay Capital Gains Tax on the value of


his business when it is not voluntarily that he goes out of business but because he has been liquidated by the action of the Government. If this is so, the Amendment would seem to be rather unfair.
Secondly, what would happen in the case of an employer who is refused a licence and who had to pay compensation or redundancy payments to members of his staff or employees on his payroll and would have to pay Surtax or Income Tax on these payments? Does this Amendment mean that the employer would not be able to be compensated for the Income Tax and Surtax he would have to pay on his employees' redundancy payments?
I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some guidance whether I have interpreted the Amendment correctly.

Mr. Gunter: First, I ought to say that, though this Amendment did not result directly from the port employers, they have agreed to what we have said here. The Amendment relates to Clause 13(2) which defines the compensation to which an employer is entitled if he had to wind up his dock business because of the refusal of a licence.
One element of compensation will be reimbursement of any expenditure incurred in winding up his dock business, and that is provided in Clause 13(1,b). Expenditure in winding up the business would cover such items as legal fees for the sale of land and premises, and auctioneers' fees for the sale of equipment and that sort of thing. But I am advised that if the provision stood as it left the House in the first place, it might also be held to cover expenditure which took the form of certain tax payments, as the hon. Gentleman has said.
Perhaps I could give an example relating to Capital Gains Tax, or Corporation Tax in the case of a company. It could happen that an employer who was refused a licence owned the freehold of a piece of land in the docks as part of his business, and that in consequence of the refusal of a licence he was obliged to sell that land. He might, as a result of the sale, make a capital gain on which he would be liable to pay Capital Gains Tax, or Corporation Tax in the case of a company.
11.30 p.m.
As I understand it, as the Clause stood, he could succeed in arguing that the payment of the tax in these circumstances was an expenditure incurred in winding up his dock business which was directly attributable to the refusal of a licence. If such an argument succeeded, he would then be entitled to compensation equal to the amount he had paid in tax and this amount would have to be paid by the surviving employers in the port, who would meet the cost of compensation through the levy. It would be wrong to allow tax payments of this kind to rank for compensation in this way.
In the example I have given, the only reason the employer in question has to pay the tax is because he has made a capital gain and, so far as that particular asset of his business is concerned—the land he has sold—the net result of his being refused a licence is that, far from suffering a loss, he is making a gain. Even after paying tax he will still have made a gain. It would be monstrous in these circumstances for the other employers to have to refund the tax to him as they would be doing through the compensation levy.
The National Association of Port Employers has agreed that tax payments of this kind should not rank for compensation. Accordingly, the Amendment has the effect that, when computing the winding-up expenditure which would be liable for compensation purposes, tax payments of this kind should be disregarded. An employer would not have to pay income tax on redundancy payments. Such payments are a loss and not a profit. He would be eligible for compensation in respect of redundancy payments. He cannot add to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 26.—(AMENDMENT OF WELFARE AMENITY SCHEMES BY THE MINISTER.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 38, leave out from beginning to "Subsections" in line 41 and insert:
The Board may at any time after a welfare amenity scheme has been approved prepare an amendment of the scheme and".

Mr. Gunter: I beg to move,
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain the Amendment. It seems to me that it has the effect of empowering the Board to take the initiative when a welfare or amenity scheme is to be amended or altered, whereas previously it has been the Minister who has been more or less able to take the initiative. What is the justification?

Mr. Gunter: The Amendment is designed to correct an inaccuracy in the wording of Clause 26, which relates to the amendment of welfare and amenity schemes which have already been approved by the Minister at the instance of the Board.
It is not intended to apply to an amendment of this kind the same procedure—application to the Minister—allowing time for objections to the proposed amendment and then approval by the Minister—that applies to the original preparation of a welfare scheme under Clause 25. The Amendment will be very helpful in both ways.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 29.—(DEFAULT ORDERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 37, after second "any" insert "other".

Mr. Gunter: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Ridley: I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman briefly to explain this Amendment. The words of the Bill refer to the powers of the Board to move in in the case of default when an amenity scheme is not being put into operation by the various employers. The Minister wishes to add the word "other" in front of "works". I should have thought that the present sense of the wording was better, because it would allow the works which have not been done by default to be done, whereas if one inserts the word "other", it will have the effect of imposing works other than the works which were to be done. I should have thought that this would weaken the Clause rather than strengthen it. Perhaps the Minister can explain.

Mr. Gunter: I take the view that this strengthens the Clause, because this is

a drafting Amendment, designed to bring the wording of the subsection into line with that in subsections (2) and (3). The hon. Member would agree, I am sure, that in these cases, it is desirable that the language should be consistent.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Amendments agreed to.

Clause 50.—(REFERENCES OF DISPUTESABOUT MEANING OF "DOCK WORK" TO A TRIBUNAL.)

Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 4, after "may" insert
subject to the provisions of the next following subsection

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: I should like to ask the Minister a question about this group of Amendments to Clause 50. This concerns the tribunal, which we greatly welcome, set up to adjudicate upon what is dock work and what is not. I see the point of the Amendment. We do not want the tribunal to be bothered by everyone who, on his own initiative, wishes to challenge a decision or bring a case before the tribunal.
That is an objective to which we all subscribe. There is a difficulty here in that if a person employed in the docks, but not a member of any union wished to object to a definition, he is effectively prevented from doing so by this Amendment, because such a person, not a member of a union, would be unlikely to persuade a union to take his case to the tribunal. As the Amendment is, it is only the trades unions which can register the complaint on a person's behalf and gain access to the tribunal. That seems to be an injustice. We do not have a compulsory closed shop, either in the docks or anywhere else. While that is the position, a person who is not a trade unionist should have equal rights of application to the tribunal in the case of a dispute. It is clear, however benevolent a trade union may be, that it will look less favourably upon someone who has refused to become a member of the union.
Can the Minister say what would be the redress available to a person who has


a genuine dispute over the nature of what is dock work, and how he can gain access to the tribunal if he is not a member of a trades union? Clearly, we want to except all objectors who are frivolous and who might take the time of the tribunal. This is an important Clause and one which we greatly welcome. Surely everyone should have the opportunity of access to the tribunal.

Mr. Gunter: This point has been rather disturbing. We have had representations from the employers and the trades unions about it. The main purpose of the Amendments is to provide that where a worker is a party to a dispute about dock work, he can have the matter referred to the tribunal only by acting through his trade union. I take the point that there could be workers in the docks who are not members of a union, but, whilst we are creating law here, if is unlikely that a worker would go to the tribunal without first seeking the advice of officials of the unions in the docks—even a man who was not a member of a union.
As the Clause stood when it left the House before, the individual would have had the right to take the Dock Labour Board before the tribunal. It has been represented to us by employers as well as trade unions that that would have opened the door to numerous references to the tribunal which might not be supported by the unions, which might serve no useful purpose and which might conceivably be used as a means of stirring up discontent. I do not want to enlarge on that point, but it is a pretty formidable argument.
There is no question of denying the individual the right to go before the tribunal in a dispute which affects him. But, on balance, we have taken the view, particularly in the light of conditions in the docks, that it would be as well if we listened to what the employers and the trades union have had to say, in that the complaint might be clarified at trade union level before being taken to the tribunal.
I would say, finally, that if I know my docks, this will work out well.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, I want to register a slight protest. It is too late a stage in the Bill and too late at night to debate it at length, but it seems a wrong principle that we should

legislate for employers and trades unions in a situation which concerns the individual.
If we are to have democracy and are not to operate a compulsory closed shop, it seems imperative that all our legislation should make it possible for the aggrieved individual to complain—not just the trades union or, on the other side, the employers. I feel that the Amendment is a mistake. It would have been better to have borne the trouble and frustration of a lot of frivolous complaints rather than deny one honestly aggrieved man who is not a member of a union the right to complain.
I agree with the Minister that the point is rather remote and far-fetched, but I should like to register a protest that legislation from this House should deal with the people who work in industry as if they were employers or, on the other side, trade unionists, when we must look at them much more in the future as a group of individuals who have their own rights—not just rights by virtue of membership of one or other organisation.
I think that the Minister has taken the point, and I hope that further legislation will avoid such mistakes.

Mr. Gunter: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. If it were merely a question of frivolous complaints, I would be with him.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: May I ask if the expression "trade union" in this context refers to trades union at the national level? I know of a case where the local branch of a union representing dock workers in a port might think one way and want to register an objection in which they would not receive the support of its headquarters, which is responsible for ports all over the country. Could a local branch of a trade union in a port make representations, or must it be done at the national level?

Mr. Gunter: I should have thought that my hon. Friend, with his knowledge of trade unions, would know that a branch, under its terms of reference, would not act without authority from its national executive. I should have thought that "trade union" in this sense would mean the national executive.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "B".—(POWER TO AMEND ACTS OF LOCAL APPLICATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 16, at end insert new Clause "B":
(1) The appropriate Minister may, after consultation with any harbour authority appearing to him to be concerned, by order repeal or amend any provision contained in a local Act passed before or in the same Session as this Act or in a provisional order confirmed or made before this Act, where it appears to him that the provision is inconsistent with, or has become unnecessary in consequence of, any provision of Part I or II of this Act.
(2) An order under this section may contain such transitional, supplemental or incidental provisions as appear to the appropriate Minister to be expedient.
(3) In this section 'appropriate Minister' means, in relation to an order containing repeals or amendments consequential on a provision of Part I of this Act, the Minister of Transport and, in relation to an order containing repeals or amendments consequential on a provision of Part II of this Act, the Minister of Labour.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the new Clause is to enable the appropriate Minister—my right hen. Friend the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour—after consulting any harbour authority, to repeal or amend by order any provision in a local statute which, it appears to him, is inconsistent with or has become unnecessary in consequence of any provision in Parts I or II of the Bill.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his brief explanation of the new Clause. It seems to me that he has finally, although rather unwittingly, met the objection which, both in Committee and on Report, was pressed by hon. Members from this side to ensure that local Acts and former Private Acts would not be paramount as against the Bill. We had several debates, which at one moment became quite heated. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that although his intention with the new Clause is, I know, to meet a different point, he has rather unwittingly

met my point that where there is a conflict, the Bill will override any local Act?
I know that the power is given to the Minister in the new Clause only to say that a local Act is overridden, but this puts the burden fairly upon the Minister in administering the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to agree and to declare by order that local Acts are repealed or amended as necessary with regard to the point which I made at each stage of the Bill, which still remains valid and which I do not believe the Minister has met. Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the new Clause at least gives the Minister power to do as we sought: that is, to overrule the overriding power of local Acts concerning the future composition of harbour authorities?

Mr. Swingler: I do not know what on earth the hon. Member is talking about. In Committee, we made it plain that the provisions of the Bill would be paramount. The new Clause is inserted to make it clear that the Minister has power to amend or repeal any local statutes which are inconsistent with Parts I or II of the Bill. This was always the intention and nothing has been done unwittingly. The power is reserved simply in connection with the application of Parts I and II of the Bill. It should be plain that this is necessary for clarification.

Mr. Ridley: Why has the hon. Gentleman omitted Part III, which, we believe, should be subject to this power?

Mr. Swingler: Because it is unnecessary since, in our diagnosis, no such inconsistency will arise. The result of our researches of local statutes is that inconsistencies will arise only between local statutes and Parts I and II of the Bill. We are therefore making it plain that the Minister has the power only in relation to those objects.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DRUG ADDICTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. W. Brown.]

11.50 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this very important matter in the House. In order to get the material for this debate, I have interviewed psychiatrists, journalists, and drug addicts, and I should like to express my thanks to them all for the help and interest which they have shown.
This is a melancholy and hellish story of escalation from pep pills to main line heroin, an escalation which can change an apparently happy, balanced, open-faced youngster into a furtive liar willing to cheat and commit violence, or to prostitute himself—or herself—in order to get the drugs which he craves physically and psychologically with such dreadful compulsion.
I know that Members on both sides of the House, and a large number of people working in the field outside, are gravely concerned at the apparent lack of activity on the part of the Government. Many of us have put down Questions, and been dissatisfied with the kind of replies which we have had, from the Prime Minister down, and even the simple business of setting up the advisory committee which was recommended by the Brain Report has not been carried out, so we feel that it is urgently necessary to raise this matter here.
I welcome the statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and the suggestion that he is preparing legislation on the lines of some of the recommendations of the Brain Report. I first had my attention directed to this urgent problem by a series of articles in the Wolverhampton Express a year ago, which literally took the lid off the situation in the Midlands, where the pushers are doing extremely good business.
At All Saints Hospital, Birmingham, about 10 per cent. of the heroin addicts in the country are being treated, and they are getting about a hundred new referrales every three months, addicted to drugs of all kinds. It is an ugly and

deteriorating situation. In 1959 there were 454 addicts known to the Home Office, most of them addicted as a result of taking morphine for medicinal reasons. In 1964 there were 753 addicts on the Home Office list, nearly half of them on heroin, a drug which is not often now used for therapeutic purposes. But what is terrifying about these official figures is the growing number of teen-agers on the official list. In 1960 there was one. In 1965 there were 64, and 8 of them were only 15 years old. The number of addicts is increasing, and the age is getting lower each year.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. These are only the ones who are so completely hooked that they have to get their supplies from their doctors. There are thousands of young people, from the ages of 11 and 12 upwards, on drugs of all kinds—amphetamines, barbiturates and hard drugs, pills, purple hearts, black bombers, pot, heroin, cocaine, and LSD. It is regarded as the "in" thing in many of the circles which young people frequent. Unfortunately many "pop" stars are addicted to drugs, and some of the television programmes which we have seen recently, particularly the one on LSD, have not helped at all those who are trying to combat this dreadful menace.
It affects young people from all kinds of backgrounds, and from widely differing family circumstances. Indeed, many highly intelligent and talented young people, at university, for example, are experimenting with drugs, and we know that there are drug rings in grammar schools and in secondary schools. We know, too, that a large number of the youngsters who come under the care of borstal institutions are under the influence of drugs.
How do young people get hold of pills and hard drugs? I am sorry to say that it is all too easy. Certainly we do not know enough about why young people take to drugs, but we know that there are enormous pressures on adolescents, and that in the places where they meet, in the youth clubs, even in the seemingly respectable ones, in coffee bars, in jazz clubs, in all-night bowling alleys, in cafés, and the rest, the contacts are made. Unless the Government act quickly, in five years the situation will be as dangerous as that in America,


where the gangs are moving in on the traffic of drugs, crime, prostitution, which all form part of this ghastly picture. Undoubtedly, theft and burglary provide many of the drugs sold openly in the places I mentioned. Thefts are made from pharmacists, warehouses and manufacturing chemists. One chemist in Birmingham, for example, had 10,000 purple hearts and phenobarbitone tablets stolen in one robbery, and this is happening in different parts of the country.
The use of stolen and false prescription forms is another source. There is a good deal of smuggled imports, particularly of marijuana, and during the seamen's strike, supplies were beginning to get tight. In 1965, there were 2 million prescriptions for pep pills, 400,000 more than in 1964, and prescriptions for tranquillisers went up by 1,900,000 to 9 million. Pushers can make as much as £40 a week selling pills. An 18-year-old youth who was recently caught in Oxford selling purple hearts in pubs paid £30 a thousand and sold them for £64 10s., which was a considerable profit.
In 1963, the report of the director of the Borstal Division of the Central After-Care Association said that 30 per cent. of boys under the supervision of their welfare officers in London were using drugs and more than 10 per cent. were using them in excess. Whereas the medicinal dose of drinamyl—purple hearts—is two or three tablets a day, addicts are taking 40 or 50 a day. In the "lost weekends" which many young people spend with their friends, some take as many as 120 or 150.
Last November, the Brain Report was published. Its terms of reference, of course, were far too restricted. It was concerned mainly with the prescribing of narcotics by doctors and ignored completely the social aspects of drug addiction. It was not concerned with the pushers and took no evidence from the addicts themselves. Had it done so, the Report could not have claimed that there was no evidence of a significant traffic in dangerous drugs stolen or smuggled into the country.
There is plenty of evidence of theft, as I mentioned. Marijuana is being smuggled from many sources. Many young

people start on pills and pot—marijuana—and escalate to heroin and other hard drugs because these are usually obtainable from the same source and the same supplier. The Report said that the Committee doubted whether doctors had contributed much to the quantity of drugs available to addicts by over-prescribing or giving new prescriptions in the false belief that the original one had been lost or damaged and concluded that only six doctors had prescribed very large amounts to addicts.
I believe that this is not correct. Addicts are driven to doctors in the end to get more supplies than they can afford on the illicit market. They tell them that they need a certain quantity of heroin and cocaine and the only way that doctors can tell what the proper dose is for their state of addiction is to put them in a hospital and watch the withdrawal symptoms carefully under controlled dosage.
One psychiatrist has described the scene outside one all-night chemist in London as a tourist attraction something like the changing of the guard, as youngsters congregate outside to buy drugs from those with prescriptions. How would they be able to sell some of their prescription if they had not been prescribed more than they need?
In this small piece of silver paper, I have six harmless-looking little white tablets. This is a pound's worth of heroin. I obtained it illicitly. I was not given a prescription. But it is easy to get, if one knows where to go and has the contacts. Young people can do the same. The Report says that addiction is not serious outside London. This is not correct. I have mentioned the situation in the Midlands, in Birmingham and in my constituency, but Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Northern Ireland all have this problem. This is known to the police and doctors working in these areas. It is not only in the large towns and cities that this is happening. The Annual Conference of Women's Institutes, for example, expressed very great concern at signs of teen-age parties in villages in Oxfordshire where drugs had been taken.
What should we do in these circumstances? First, we must ensure that all drugs are under the control of qualified pharmacists—and we should remember


that any drug store operated by an unqualified person who has an account with a wholesale chemist can be supplied with amphetamines and barbiturates. Legislation should be introduced at once to make it illegal for any supplier of Schedule 4 poisons to supply anyone except a qualified person. There should be much stricter control at chemists' shops and places where drugs are stored or manufactured. Chemists should be required to keep all such drugs locked in a safe place and amphetamines should be placed on the drugs list.
As long as doctors are allowed to prescribe for addicts, until legislation is introduced, they should be educated in the proper use of drugs. Parents should be much more alive to the indications of drug addiction in their children and more ready to seek medical help. If their boys and girls show character changes, lose their appetites for prolonged periods, stay out frequently over weekends or become scruffy and of dirty appearance, they should check to find out where they really spend their time and what they are doing.
Teachers, too, should be instructed and taught to recognise the signs of addiction so that cases can be reported at once to the school medical officer. Where cases are discovered, it should be routine to check the rest of the children. A urine test will show, even three days after, when drugs have been taken and it is incomprehensible in this context to think that in a recent case, where a drug ring was discovered in a grammer school, the education authority of London refused to co-operate in making these tests. Children found to be using drugs must be treated at once in hospital.
The drug squads of every police force in the towns and cities where this menace is known need reinforcement. I believe that we could get the co-operation of young people to volunteer to work in places where young people congregate, and so help the police in this respect. The police should be given powers to enter and inspect teenage clubs, coffee bars, dance halls and so on and these should be licensed annually. Consideration should be given to the banning of all-night clubs for young people. Brewers could be more co-operative. Many

publicans have cleaned up their premises in this respect and have refused to allow admittance to people who are known to be selling drugs or to be under the influence of drugs, although many have closed their eyes to what is going on under their noses.
Legislation must be introduced to make treatment compulsory for patients once they are in hospital, as the Brain Report recommends. Then there must be treatment centres set up, as that Report further recommends, in addition to day and long-term treatment centres. We do not have enough hospitals in London to treat drug addicts, remembering, too, that they are difficult patients. These treatment centres must be set up not only in London but in other towns and cities.
Because time is short I have had to go at considerable speed through these points. I suggest that to investigate this matter properly a pilot scheme should be established as soon as possible at one of the London hospitals so that this whole problem of the treatment of drug addiction can be gone into thoroughly to give us an example of how to deal with it in the rest of the country.
This is a very grave problem and thousands of young people are at risk. They will not kick the heroin habit themselves. Many of them will die for it, and for every one who dies two or three more will be waiting in the queue to start the whole dreary, dangerous cycle again.

12.5 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) has, as she knows, raised matters that are the concern of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the Home Secretary, and I will endeavour as far as I can to reply to the points, even though they affect Departments other than my own Department.
I am sure that everyone must be greatly concerned at the sudden increase in drug taking in recent years, and appalled by the fact that some people are making profit out of selling drugs to teenagers. There are, as my hon. Friend realises, two main problems here, although the two are not unrelated. First


there is the increase in the number of addicts to heroin and cocaine and, secondly, the vogue for taking amphetamine drugs, particularly among young people.
The facts about the first are fairly clear, because the Home Office has for many years collected information about prescriptions for narcotics, and with the help of regional medical officers and doctors generally has tried to identify all cases of addiction. The number of addicts known to the Home Office has risen from 454 in 1959 to 927 in 1965. The number of those who have become addicts for reasons other than the taking of drugs to relieve pain has greatly increased, and unfortunately the number of known addicts under the age of 20 has also increased. In 1959, we knew of no addicts under the age of 20, and in 1965 there were 145 under that age. It may be that these figures do not tell the whole story, as there are probably other addicts who have not yet come to notice.
When the first signs of growing heroin and cocaine addiction were seen, the Government reconvened the Brain Committee on Drug Addiction, and its second Report was issued in November, 1965. The Committee concluded that the main source of supply of these hard drugs was their over-prescribing by a small number of doctors. It gave an example of one doctor alone prescribing 600,000 tablets of heroin in one year, and gave other disturbing examples of single prescription of a thousand tablets. To counteract this, the Committee recommended that there should be compulsory notification of addicts to a central authority, that special treatment centres should be set up, and that the prescribing of heroin and cocaine should be restricted, except in emergencies, to doctors at treatment centres.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health announced yesterday what legislation the Government are preparing to deal with this problem.
The Brain Committee also recommended the appointment of a standing advisory committee on drug addiction, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health recently announced that Lord Brain had accepted an invitation to be chairman of a committee, with appropriate terms of reference. It is intended that the committee should have a broad

balance of medical and lay membership competent to advise on social and preventive as well as medical aspects of the problem. It is hoped to announce the membership soon.
The second problem, as my hon. Friend has said, is the practice amongst young people of taking amphetamine drugs, and the risk that some may be encouraged by pushers to experiment with and become dependent on more dangerous drugs like heroin or cocaine.
Where do these drugs come from? My hon. Friend has mentioned some of the places. Clearly, some may come from the factories where they are produced. There is over-prescribing. There is theft in transit. There is stealing from hospitals and warehouses. There are many places from which these drugs come.
The Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, which came into operation at the end of 1964, made it an offence for anyone to be in authorised possession of these drugs, unless they were held on prescription by a doctor. Therefore, anyone in possession of a flood of these drugs, not even of the dangerous kind which my hon. Friend has in her possession now, but even of the amphetamine type, could risk prosecution.
So far, since the end of 1964 there have been 1,600 prosecutions and 1,500 convictions for unauthorised possession of amphetamines, the majority of these being in London. We have asked every firm registered under the 1964 Act to give a written statement of its security arrangements. This they have done and their replies are being examined to see if safeguards already adopted by some firms could be more generally used. We are also reviewing, with the help of the Pharmaceutical Society, the problem of security in pharmacies.
Amphetamines present a very difficult problem of security because of the numbers of the tablets which are involved. In 1965 the number of National Health Service prescriptions for amphetamines alone was 3·8 million, which probably covered something of the order of 100 million tablets. We are talking in terms of hundreds of millions of these tablets. The number of National Health Service prescriptions for amphetamines has in fact been falling since 1965, but at


the same time prescriptions for tranquillisers and anti-depressants have been rising.
With heroin and cocaine, which are strictly controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965, all supplies have to be carefully recorded from manufacturer to pharmacy. Clearly it would be a very difficult task indeed to apply control of this kind to amphetamines, with the colossal number of tablets which are involved.
My hon. Friend mentioned the drug LSD-25. She will be pleased to learn that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a few days ago made a Statutory Instrument adding LSD-25 to the Schedule to the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964. I shall move the approval of this Order on Friday of this week.
My hon. Friend also asked for a greater effort to be made to check trafficking. The figures I have given of convictions under the 1964 Act show that the police have taken vigilant action under this Act. Last year the police and the Customs seized over 1,000 kgs. of cannabis—Indian hemp—and there were 614 convictions for illegal possession.
We have established at Scotland Yard a Dangerous Drugs Squad. More officers have been added to the squad and, if necessary, we shall add even more. A number of forces have been using special groups on drugs work with success. We hope for more development on these lines.
My hon. Friend particularly stressed the influence upon drug trafficking that may be exerted by undesirable clubs. As I think she will know, the Government have decided to give full assistance to the Lord Chief Justice over the Private Member's Bill he has introduced in another place providing for stricter control of clubs.
My hon. Friend also asked me about getting at the root causes of drug misuse and obtaining better knowledge of its extent. This is very important. The Brain Committee's proposals for compulsory notification should help to measure trends in narcotic addiction. The need for comprehensive treatment for those who are already dependent on drugs was stressed by my hon. Friend. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend

the Minister of Health, to whose attention I shall bring the points that my hon. Friend has made. The House will not expect me to deal with that matter in very great detail at this time, for I have not very much time to reply to the debate. The National Health Service already provides specialist treatment for addicts in some 160 psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric units in general hospitals. The London area is served by about 30 of these hospitals, including four specialised treatment units.
I understand that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to improve and extend treatment facilities. As he said on Tuesday, steps are being taken to set up a unit in which research can be undertaken into the problems of drug dependency, and there is to be a conference of doctors who are experts in the treatment of these problems. By these means, the hospital services for the treatment of drug dependency will be improved in the light of medical knowledge and will be extended to meet such increasing demand as may arise.
My hon. Friend asked about limiting doctors' authority to prescribe or supply drugs.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: Would the right hon. Lady bear in mind the unfortunate necessity of compelling young people to undergo the full course of treatment, because they tend to go away just when they are within reasonable distance of making a full recovery?

Miss Bacon: That is a point which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
I was saying that any question of prescribing and the doctor's authority to supply or prescribe drugs always raises difficult problems, because patients must not be deprived of essential treatment. Both heroin and cocaine are regarded by many doctors as clinically irreplaceable for certain limited purposes, and amphetamines, barbiturates and tranquillisers all have a wide range of clinical use. It would be impracticable to attempt to define a maximum quantity of heroin or cocaine which could be dispensed on one prescription.
The Committee's proposals for limitation are on a different basis. The Brain Committee proposed to limit to doctors on the staff of treatment centres the authority to prescribe or supply heroin or cocaine to addicts while leaving all doctors free to prescribe or supply for patients for whom they are necessary for the relief of pain. I have already explained the action on this which the Government are preparing, in consultation with the medical profession.
As regards other types of drugs, again I think it must be left to the doctor to decide on the requirements of the individual patient. But I am sure that in prescribing doctors will take heed of the warnings in the Brain Report about the dangers of over-prescribing. This is not only wasteful in pure money terms, but the existence of unused drugs provides temptation to unscrupulous persons to use them for the wrong purposes. I am sure that on the shelves of many households today there are many of these drugs within the reach of young people, and everyone ought to be very careful about these things.
My hon. Friend made a specific suggestion about the rôle of teachers in this matter, and I shall bring that to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that his Department is preparing a new edition of a pamphlet issued in 1956 on "Health Education" for teachers, local authorities and students, which included limited advice on drugs and alcohol, in which it is intended to amplify the advice on these matters.
In the short time at my disposal, I have tried to indicate the Government's views on the very important matters raised by my hon. Friend. We recognise that the country is faced with a serious growth in drug taking, as many highly industrial nations are——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.